Waco, Rules of Engagement; some observations

[RGCheek388]

I finally saw Waco,Rules of Engagement, and I am more convinced than ever of
the gross injustice, the bloody massacre, that occured there. This movie did an
excellent job in portraying what, from my POV, are indisputable facts.

1) The Feds have repeatedly lied about this whole thing:
a) The FLIR tapes clearly show the FBI firing at the BD's on the 19th, and
anyone who says otherwise is either a liar or a moron. The fed explanation that
these were reflections of sunlight is an absurd and audacious lie. Infrared
images do not pick up reflections of sunlight in that fashion, only HEAT. Any
reflective material that was giving off that amount of heat would be constantly
visible as the same 'brightness' regardless of the angle of the observer. What
the FLIR tapes clearly show is full automatic machine-gun fire at the BD's in
their kitchen. Why would the Feds be shooting at these people they are
supposedly rescuing? The only plausible answer is that they wanted to keep them
inside as the flames consumed them alive. It is amazing that anyone survived at
all.
b) The ATF lied about there being no machine gun fire from helicopters in
the initial assault. What the government negotiators finally admit is that
there were no MOUNTED machine guns in those helicopters, but there were men
armed with automatic rifles in those helicopters and they did fire at the BD's.

c) The ATF lied about what they were conducting their raid for. They got the
warrant claiming that the BD's had illegal full auto rifles in their posession,
but this was NEVER proven in court or before Congress, in fact the government
refused to give the weapons over for outside inspection untill well after the
feds could have altered them themselves. They lied to the military about there
supposedly being a meth lab at the BD's home. There never was ANY evidence
provided of this, in fact the feds seem to have tacitly acknowleged that this
was a lie from the beginning; a thin veneer given to the military to justify
their assault training by the military in violation of the posse comitatus
laws.
d) The feds have repeatedly lied about the BDs being a cult. The dictionary
definition is that a cult is 1) a system of religion, and 2) devoted to a
personality or thing, as in 'Elvis Presley cult'. This is overly broad. In
general use, the term signifies a religious group under the hypnotic control of
a single charismatic leader to the extent that they give up their own sense of
individuality and reason. The Democratic Party would be anexellent example of
a cult if they were religious; considering the way they defend Clintons history
of crime and perversion defies all right reason. :) The BD's were not a cult
in this fashion. They had some very odd religious beliefs, but were there
because they agreed with Vernon Howell, not because of any mystic spell he
cast. The movie plainly shows that VH had an average appearance and a cracky
voice; there was little attractive or charismatic about him. The BD's also had
some very intelligent members there, some Harvard grads etc. And the locals,
the county sherriff, etc, knew them as good decent Americans. They were NOT a
cult, and no more excentric than many extreme protestant schisms. This 'cult'
claim is a lie told by the feds to justify the assaults and murders in the
minds of the general public. Even if they were 'cultists', this does not
invalidate their constitutional rights to purchase weapons or be treated to the
due processes of the law.
e) The feds repeatedly have lied about the claims that V Howell molested
these children. The one girl presented in front of Congress had been
discreditted before, and their origen was in a divorce custody battle between a
BD mother and a nonBD father who thought such charges would get him custody
(they did). When the local child welfare officials investigated the matter they
found NO evidence to support the claims the girl made. Other charges were
similarly made and were also found to have no merit. But the federal
governments calumny on this matter has had no bounds, and virtually everyone in
this country now believes VH to have been a child molester. Not only is there
no proof of this at all, but it would not justify fed actions in this whole
attrocity even if they were true. Undeniably, the worst things that happened to
those children were the two assaults on their homes by the ATF and the FBI. It
also demonstrates the abject abandonment of reason by fed shills, when they
claim that the CS assault on those children was done for their own protection.
The movie gave graphic evidence that the CS had been in such concentrations
that some of those little children died from cyanide poisoning, their bodies
bent double backwards from the cyanide effects. The agony those little children
went through before dying is nothing less than barbaric. It is little wonder
that the feds lie so desperately about this massacre.
f) The feds have from the beginning also militarized the entire image of the
BD's HOME. The movie shows the absurdity of those terms as the structure of the
HOME was clearly residential and was not designed or constructed to be a
military compound no more than Randy Weavers trailer was a 'mountain fortress'.
Though the use of such terms may sway the press and the public at the time, in
the long run, the absurdity of describing such dwellings in military terms
shows the low regard the fed agents have for truth and accuracy, and
demonstrates the military MINDSET that the feds take with them to the scenes of
confrontation. They seem to have forgotten that these are civilian families
with children, not rural terrorists.

I could go on more, but the point is made. The Federal officials have been
lying in the most egregious scale about their conduct in this massacre. That
the media and various members of the House and Senate, especially Charles
Schumer, have participated in covering up the conduct of these officials, is
both disturbing and illuminating.

2) The Feds have destroyed/obscurred evidence that would condemn their
conduct.
a) The front doors of the BD's home would prove who was lying about the
initial confrontation in the ATF raid, as each insisted the other fired first
through those doors. The Feds have somehow managed to 'lose' this set of metal,
double doors, and they were not consumed in the fire. Anyone with a brain knows
what really happened here.
b) The ATF was video taping the initial assault, and most of the videotape
that could have provided key evidence of the assault, and who started the gun
fire, have been mysteriously 'blanked'. Again, it doesnt take a rocket
scientist to figure this one out either.
c) The video the forensic investigators took of the crime scene was
confiscated with the promise it would be returned. It too was 'lost' by the
FBI.
d) The FBI crime lab failed to take into consideration that the forensic
evidence of large amounts of fuel traces found on the clothing of the victims
was contaminated by the fuel spills caused by the tanks that were demolishing
the BD's home. (Of course, the FBI crime lab has since been shown to have been
so politicised that its 'conclusions' on anything were self-serving and
scientifically baseless.)
e) The individual after action reports of the ATF agents of the initial
raid were aborted. The officials explained that this could be evidence used to
clear the BD's later. This is a tacit admission of who was at fault for the
bloody massacre.
f) The FBI Command Center at the J Edgar Hoover building has also FAILED
REPEATEDLY to provide either body of Congress or any outside sources the
transcripts of their proceedings on the final assault. This is incredible.
Those records were made, but may now have been destroyed. That the Republicans
have dropped the matter shows what low cowards they are. That is crucial in
determining how and why the government made the decisions it did in assaulting
young children and babies with CS gas in order to spare them from 'abuse'. It
is apparent who the real abusers and liars are.
g) The phone logs of the Justice Dept and White House have been censored.
Even the copies provided the Congressional committees were censored. What is
the JD and WH hiding? Did the real president, Mrs Clinton, order that assault
herself?

3) The initial ATF raid was mismanaged, poorly organized, and incompetently
executed from the start. It was plainly a PR scheme from the word go, and even
losing the element of surprise 30MINUTES beforehand did not persuade them to
call off their wonderful show. Yes, it truly was "showtime" for the ATF, and
clearly they showed that the ATF should be immediately disbanded before they
massacre some other innocent community of Americans.

4) The FBI has become a sinister organization willing to commit perjury, stage
evidence, alter evidence, and destroy evidence and murder men, women, and
children in cold blood to protect their careers. Their conduct at Waco was
malicious, vengeful, and a display of their low regard for due process,
presumption of innocence, and even life itself. All of this calls into question
whether they can be considered to be even a benign organization worthy of the
respect and admiration that many Americans have for it, and I once had. As this
movie and the facts concerning Waco make their way through the publics
conscience, and they will, the FBI will increasingly be seen as a tyrranical
tool and an enemy of the public good. Only a complete disclosure of what really
happened there will give them even a miniscule chance of recovering their
reputations.

My own wife, a typical loyal American who has debated various topics with me
over the years, was completely convinced by this movie. If there is anyone on
this planet inoculated to shocking evidence of gross injustice, it is she.
Waco, the Rules of Engagement, has opened her eyes, and she no longer believes
that the government was justified in what it did, nor that the Branch Davidians
deserved the horrid fate they recieved, either. If this movie can persuade her,
it can persuade anyone with an open mind. If you have any concern about the
abuse of state power, see this movie.

RGlenCheek

[Guru165871]

In article <891607808$20...@black-helicopter.psychetect.com>,
rgche...@aol.com (RGCheek388) writes:

> I finally saw Waco,Rules of Engagement, and I am more convinced than ever
>of the gross injustice, the bloody massacre, that occured there. This movie
did
>an excellent job in portraying what, from my POV, are indisputable facts.

I just watched it last night, and two parallel observations are in order:

1. FBI killed the Branch Davidians, but it's essentially David Koresh's
fault that they did. ("God told me to stay put...")

and,

2. The Branch Davidians killed the ATF agents, but it's essentially the
ATF's own fault that THEY did. (Shoot first, show the warrant later...)

>1) The Feds have repeatedly lied about this whole thing:
> a) The FLIR tapes clearly show the FBI firing at the BD's on the 19th,
>and anyone who says otherwise is either a liar or a moron. The fed explanation
>that these were reflections of sunlight is an absurd and audacious lie.
Infrared
>images do not pick up reflections of sunlight in that fashion, only HEAT. Any
>reflective material that was giving off that amount of heat would be
>constantly visible as the same 'brightness' regardless of the angle of the
observer.

A sufficiently bright flash of sunlight could show up FEINTLY on a FLIR,
(yes, sunlight IS warm...) but not as brightly as a muzzle-flash signature,
and certainly not in the signature series of flashes as seen in that
particular tape. The "sunlight" lie was indeed a lie, but a somewhat
subtle one. I, personally, am thoroughly convinced that FBI agents were
indeed firing into the building just prior to and during the fire. (I leave
open
the possibility that they were returning fire on BDs who may have been
firing on THEM, but since they claim not to have fired a shot, that's pretty
much moot by now.)

>What
>the FLIR tapes clearly show is full automatic machine-gun fire at the BD's in
>their kitchen. Why would the Feds be shooting at these people they are
>supposedly rescuing? The only plausible answer is that they wanted to keep
>them inside as the flames consumed them alive. It is amazing that anyone
survived
>at all.

Well, remember that the gunfire was on the side BLIND to the media "camp."
Those who survived were lucky enough to exit the building THROUGH the
wall of flames, and out into the view of the news cameras. The ones who
tried to escape normally, through the part of the building that wasn't yet
on fire, evidently got mowed down.

> b) The ATF lied about there being no machine gun fire from helicopters in
>the initial assault. What the government negotiators finally admit is that
>there were no MOUNTED machine guns in those helicopters, but there were men
>armed with automatic rifles in those helicopters and they did fire at the
>BD's.

At the very least, assault rifle fire from the helicopters killed Peter Gent.
It was even caught on video: Gent climbed up onto the watertower, got
shot, and then fell onto the tower, dropping what appeared to be a rifle.
The helicopter that had to land may have been crippled by rifle fire from
Gent, but since the maintenance logs of the helicopters were "missing,"
this is still up in the air (no pun intended).

> c) The ATF lied about what they were conducting their raid for. They got
>the warrant claiming that the BD's had illegal full auto rifles in their
>posession, but this was NEVER proven in court or before Congress, in fact the
>government refused to give the weapons over for outside inspection untill well
after >the feds could have altered them themselves. They lied to the military
about
>there supposedly being a meth lab at the BD's home. There never was ANY
>evidence provided of this, in fact the feds seem to have tacitly acknowleged
that >this was a lie from the beginning; a thin veneer given to the military to
justify
>their assault training by the military in violation of the posse comitatus
>laws.

What Janet Reno called "really good rental cars." (The CEVs and Bradleys.)
They had to claim a drug nexus to get the military equipment. Unfortunately,
I think some subsequent EOs have negated that requirement, and they seem
to have gotten some armored vehicles of their own now.

And yes, it is indeed strange that they won't release the "illegally modified
assaul rifles" for independant inspection. All they did was hold one up and
swear to Schmuck Schumer that it was one of 48 illegally-modified
weapons seized. (And of course Schumer was such an idiot he claimed
a flash-bang grenade couldn't possibly hurt anyone... he wouldn't know an
illegal gun from a banana split anyway. I rather enjoyed the part where the
committee chairman told Schumer he was out of order!!!)

> d) The feds have repeatedly lied about the BDs being a cult. The
>dictionary definition is that a cult is 1) a system of religion, and 2)
devoted to a
>personality or thing, as in 'Elvis Presley cult'. This is overly broad. In
>general use, the term signifies a religious group under the hypnotic control
>of a single charismatic leader to the extent that they give up their own sense
>of individuality and reason. The Democratic Party would be anexellent example
>of a cult if they were religious; considering the way they defend Clintons
>history of crime and perversion defies all right reason. :) The BD's were not
a cult
>in this fashion. They had some very odd religious beliefs, but were there
>because they agreed with Vernon Howell, not because of any mystic spell he
>cast. The movie plainly shows that VH had an average appearance and a cracky
>voice; there was little attractive or charismatic about him. The BD's also
>had some very intelligent members there, some Harvard grads etc. And the
locals,
>the county sherriff, etc, knew them as good decent Americans. They were NOT a
>cult, and no more excentric than many extreme protestant schisms. This 'cult'
>claim is a lie told by the feds to justify the assaults and murders in the
>minds of the general public. Even if they were 'cultists', this does not
>invalidate their constitutional rights to purchase weapons or be treated to
>the due processes of the law.

I tend to disagree, and think that it was indeed a cult, albeit not one that
fit traditional molds or profiles. It was based, not so much on the
personality of Vernon Howell (who was known as Mister Retardo in high
school), but on Howell's knowledge of biblical passages and ability to
fit any situation into a biblical perspective. Rather than use charisma to
lock people into a codependant state of mind, he used KNOWLEDGE to
appear to give people the sense of purpose and "mission" they seemed
to lack in their previous life.

But many of the other hallmarks of cults were indeed there, and the film
doesn't hide any of them: having his way with all the women may have
been under allegedly "biblical" pretexts, but it's still a cultish element of
control. The claim to being "God's spokesman" also lends cult-like power
to the leader. And the members were even confused as to who he was:
when asked if he was the Christ, one of them said no, one of them said
he was "a" Christ, and another said "I hope he is." This showed varying
stages of cult enthrallment among the members, according to the different
backgrounds and personalities of the members. Remember that some
went out and some stayed: the ones who were more mesmerized by
Koresh's biblical knowledge and their own faith and hopes that God
would favor him and protect them from the FBI, displayed it.

> e) The feds repeatedly have lied about the claims that V Howell molested
>these children. The one girl presented in front of Congress had been
>discreditted before, and their origen was in a divorce custody battle between
>a BD mother and a nonBD father who thought such charges would get him custody
>(they did). When the local child welfare officials investigated the matter
>they found NO evidence to support the claims the girl made. Other charges were
>similarly made and were also found to have no merit. But the federal
>governments calumny on this matter has had no bounds, and virtually everyone
>in this country now believes VH to have been a child molester. Not only is
there
>no proof of this at all, but it would not justify fed actions in this whole
>attrocity even if they were true.

Well, Kiri Jewell was unfortunately in Paula Jones' boat: without graphic
and explicit evidence, and/or closely material corroborative testimony
(such as someone else walking in on them), there was insufficient
evidence to convict. The sheriff made a legal argument, though, which
isn't necessarily true: parental consent for marriage of 14 year-olds
does not extend to common-law cohabitation, according to Texas law.
I think some of the BD parents could have bluntly admitted to what
they would think were legal acts of cohabitation between Koresh and
14/15/16 year-old girls, which would solidly convict him of statutory
rape. Guns or no guns, Koresh could have spent a good long sojourn
in jail. (Of course, none of this still justifies what FBI did to them...)

>Undeniably, the worst things that happened
>to those children were the two assaults on their homes by the ATF and the FBI.
>It also demonstrates the abject abandonment of reason by fed shills, when they
>claim that the CS assault on those children was done for their own
>protection.

They were extremely disingenuous when they claimed the BDs had
child-sized gas masks--a blatant lie.

>The movie gave graphic evidence that the CS had been in such concentrations
>that some of those little children died from cyanide poisoning, their bodies
>bent double backwards from the cyanide effects. The agony those little
>children went through before dying is nothing less than barbaric. It is little
wonder
>that the feds lie so desperately about this massacre.

The autopsy reports give CO2 asphyxiation, which really, come to think
of it, is more plausible anyway: the methylene chloride carrying agent
had largely dissipated through the vents by the time the fire lit up. The
coroner was probably NOT a part of the cover-up, IMHO, because of the
mistrust FBI displayed toward them, stealing their videotape, etc. There
just wasn't a level of cooperation that would lend credibility to the idea
that the coroner was pressured to falsify the autopsy reports. So, I'm
going to have to take the "cyanide" claims with a hefty grain of salt.

One thing I was not aware of before, though, was the "pyrotechnic"
flashes shown on the FLIR tapes at the three points of origin for the
fire. The BDs were accused by the government-supremacists of
lighting up "molotov cocktails" which they claim had caught fire to
the house. BULLSHIT. Molotov cocktails don't give off "pyrotechnic"
heat signatures. These things were MOST likely either flash-bangs
or white phosphorus. Probably flash-bangs. Now, there is a very
suspicious pattern of tanks retreating from EACH of the flash-points
of the fire JUST PRIOR to the ignition. Let's go over each of the
possible scenarios, shall we?:

1. BDs used flash-bangs that had been kept live from the ATF raid
(which attorney DeGuerin testified having seen inside the building
during his visit), to sort of "ward off" the CEVs, which then retreated
as a result.

2. FBI used some sort of pyrotechnics to start the fire, charges
equipped with a 20 second (or thereabouts) delay fuse.

(To my knowledge, all other explanations just don't pass either the
giggle test or Occam's Razor.)

Explanation #1 would also lend an explanation as to the gunfire into
the building: there was a sort of "Custer's last stand" going on where
some of the BDs decided to hit the FBI with every last thing they
had during the assault. FBI lost patience at this and "returned fire,"
retreating under cover of the armored vehicles. The flash-bangs
that had warded them off, though, also accidentally set fire to the
building. It's very painful to admit to as a possibility, since it doesn't
exactly convict FBI of premeditated murder, but it's still hanging out
there, annoyingly.

Explanation #2 fits in more with the premeditated murder thesis:
that the timed-fuse charges had been inserted by the tanks at a
predetermined time according to an assault PLAN (the details of
which have never been released to the public), and this is
accompanied by small-arms fire either unilaterally by FBI or as a
response to some semblance of resistance by some armed BDs.
One reason why I think this is even more plausible than the first
scenario is the apparent synchronization of the pyrotechnic flashes.
This is a level of synchronization more likely to be achieved by
trained FBI/HRT personnel than by a gaggle of wild-eyed cultists
making a "last stand" action.

>f) The feds have from the beginning also militarized the entire image of the
>BD's HOME. The movie shows the absurdity of those terms as the structure of
>the HOME was clearly residential and was not designed or constructed to be a
>military compound no more than Randy Weavers trailer was a 'mountain
>fortress'.

True. It's run-of-the-mill psyops. Been there, done that. I burst out
laughing when the FBI shill claimed not to know what the term
'psyops' meant. That was an amazing whopper on his part, either
that or he certainly wasn't qualified to be an agent.

>Though the use of such terms may sway the press and the public at the time,
>in the long run, the absurdity of describing such dwellings in military terms
>shows the low regard the fed agents have for truth and accuracy, and
>demonstrates the military MINDSET that the feds take with them to the scenes
>of confrontation. They seem to have forgotten that these are civilian families
>with children, not rural terrorists.

The FBI negotiator said it best (paraphrasing): "These guys are used to
jumping out of airplanes and helicopters and driving tanks; they have a
somewhat different mind-set than the likes of you and me."

I think the most significant problem is that the FBI had permanently
lost sight of the fact that there were CHILDREN inside the building.
They were so intent on extracting the adults in a "confrontational"
manner, they forgot that there could be some extremely tragic
"collateral damage," either that or they just didn't care. That they
were intent on killing the BDs inside the building was evident by
many of the off-color statements the agents had made (no doubt
as part of the "confrontational" mode they were in). But, to give
the FBI its due, also, up UNTIL the point where Koresh decided
not to come out as planned, the operation appeared to be a
run-of-the-mill "standoff" situation, and had they gone out they
probably would not have been killed. (Although there was a very
suspicious situation where FBI claimed a guy tried to "shoot his
way out" but there was no evidence produced that he was armed
in any way, which would lend credibility to some BD claims that
only certain people were "allowed" out. It's possible that any
BDs leaving the building had to be "cleared" by the negotiators
to "prevent a sneak attack," or some such.)

>I could go on more, but the point is made. The Federal officials have been
>lying in the most egregious scale about their conduct in this massacre. That
>the media and various members of the House and Senate, especially Charles
>Schumer, have participated in covering up the conduct of these officials, is
>both disturbing and illuminating.

Well, if anything, Schmuck Schumer's outrageous displays were fairly
good psyops for militia/patriot types, as an example of why they might
need to take up arms. ;-)

Did anyone notice that during some of the testimony, most of the
people present in the room were crying, including interns at the
door, people in the audience, and Congress people on the panel?
I hope the CongressCritters can live with themselves, knowing
that in essence they haven't done a damn thing to punish the FBI
for its extremely egregious actions. If I were a Rep, and some
bureaucrat tried to hem and haw at me as to why a report still
hadn't been furnished after two years, and why some other evidence
had been REDACTED, I'd be on a serious warpath to slash FBI's
funding until they started to remember who holds the purse-strings.
This is BESIDE the fact of any particular actions at Waco itself.
The aftermath alone, and their lack of cooperation with the
Committee would have had me fuming.

I concur with all of this.

>My own wife, a typical loyal American who has debated various topics with me
>over the years, was completely convinced by this movie. If there is anyone on
>this planet inoculated to shocking evidence of gross injustice, it is she.
>Waco, the Rules of Engagement, has opened her eyes, and she no longer
>believes that the government was justified in what it did, nor that the Branch
>Davidians deserved the horrid fate they recieved, either. If this movie can
persuade
>her, it can persuade anyone with an open mind. If you have any concern about
the
>abuse of state power, see this movie.

Good for her, and really, for you.

"Do be do be doooooo..." --Bud Ice Penguin

[red.k...@mailexcite.com]

In article <891607808$20...@black-helicopter.psychetect.com>,

rgche...@aol.com (RGCheek388) wrote:
>
>
> I finally saw Waco,Rules of Engagement, and I am more convinced than ever
of
> the gross injustice, the bloody massacre, that occured there. This movie did
an
> excellent job in portraying what, from my POV, are indisputable facts.
>
> 1) The Feds have repeatedly lied about this whole thing:
>

> b) The ATF lied about there being no machine gun fire from helicopters in
> the initial assault. What the government negotiators finally admit is that
> there were no MOUNTED machine guns in those helicopters, but there were men
> armed with automatic rifles in those helicopters and they did fire at the
BD's.
>

No one ever admitted that there were any automatic weapons aboard the
helicopters.
1) There were not
2) There were handguns with the agents aboard, but
3) The doors of the helicopters were never opened while in filght.

> c) The ATF lied about what they were conducting their raid for. They got
the
> warrant claiming that the BD's had illegal full auto rifles in their
posession,
> but this was NEVER proven in court or before Congress, in fact the
government
> refused to give the weapons over for outside inspection untill well after
the
> feds could have altered them themselves.

Then no chain of evidence is, or can be, good enough.

It must have been proven in court to support the charges against Fatta.

Even if it weren't, what about Ron Cole's admission on this group that the BDs
had automatic weapons that they had converted themselves?

They lied to the military about
there
> supposedly being a meth lab at the BD's home. There never was ANY evidence
> provided of this, in fact the feds seem to have tacitly acknowleged that
this
> was a lie from the beginning; a thin veneer given to the military to justify
> their assault training by the military in violation of the posse comitatus
> laws.

What admission are you refering to? There was evidence. And evidence, any
evidence was all the standard required. Not even probable cause is required
to obtain the assistance requested.

What has their being a cult or not got to do with it?

> e) The feds repeatedly have lied about the claims that V Howell molested
> these children. The one girl presented in front of Congress had been
> discreditted before, and their origen was in a divorce custody battle
between a
> BD mother and a nonBD father who thought such charges would get him custody
> (they did). When the local child welfare officials investigated the matter
they
> found NO evidence to support the claims the girl made.

No relation between Kiri Jewell and the charges investigated by Texas Child
Welfare. Different incidents.

Other charges were
> similarly made and were also found to have no merit.

This is true.

> 2) The Feds have destroyed/obscurred evidence that would condemn their
> conduct.
> a) The front doors of the BD's home would prove who was lying about the
> initial confrontation in the ATF raid, as each insisted the other fired
first
> through those doors. The Feds have somehow managed to 'lose' this set of
metal,
> double doors, and they were not consumed in the fire. Anyone with a brain
knows
> what really happened here.

The door, if it showed what I beleive whoud be found, i.e. bullet holes going
both ways, would proove what?

> b) The ATF was video taping the initial assault, and most of the
videotape
> that could have provided key evidence of the assault, and who started the
gun
> fire, have been mysteriously 'blanked'. Again, it doesnt take a rocket
> scientist to figure this one out either.

Not blanked. Ran out. Since video tapes are of standard lengths, that they
all "blanked" at about the same time is no great mystery.

> e) The individual after action reports of the ATF agents of the initial
> raid were aborted. The officials explained that this could be evidence used
to
> clear the BD's later. This is a tacit admission of who was at fault for the
> bloody massacre.

At the request of the Justice Department. ATF is still hot about it. My
father intends to complete the shooting review for the book he and I are going
to start after he retires.

>
> 3) The initial ATF raid was mismanaged, poorly organized, and incompetently
> executed from the start.

I'll grant extreme errors of judgement in the decision to go ahead aftert
surprise had been lost.

It was plainly a PR scheme from the word go, and
even
> losing the element of surprise 30MINUTES beforehand did not persuade them to
> call off their wonderful show. Yes, it truly was "showtime" for the ATF, and
> clearly they showed that the ATF should be immediately disbanded before they
> massacre some other innocent community of Americans.
>

I'll support a dissolution of ATF.

> My own wife, a typical loyal American who has debated various topics with me
> over the years, was completely convinced by this movie. If there is anyone
on
> this planet inoculated to shocking evidence of gross injustice, it is she.
> Waco, the Rules of Engagement, has opened her eyes, and she no longer
believes
> that the government was justified in what it did, nor that the Branch
Davidians
> deserved the horrid fate they recieved, either. If this movie can persuade
her,
> it can persuade anyone with an open mind. If you have any concern about the
> abuse of state power, see this movie.

Then the movie served the purpose for which it was tailored.

And it was tailored.

Grail IC

-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading

[ar...@surfari.net]

red.knight of the red.lands wroteth he:.

> It must have been proven in court to support the charges against Fatta.

It wasn't proven in court. The jury was satified that there were automatic
weapons, but there was nothing, NOTHING to connect Paul Fatta to any
modifications in the inventory and isn't to this day.

You know, Red Knight, as well as I do, that the FBI had a major hard on to
get Paul Fatta since the day he started talking to the media. They wanted
him shut up and shut up fast. He was looking just a little too coherent and
credible in the interviews with Katy Couric and Pravda West (LA Times). The
FBI was out for Paul Fatta's blood and, with their famous FBI determination
and infamous FBI sleight of hand, they got it.

> There was evidence [of a meth lab].

What evidence?

> At the request of the Justice Department. ATF is still hot about it. My
> father intends to complete the shooting review for the book he and I are
> going to start after he retires.

Good for him. You raised him right, Sonny. Hope other agents follow suit,
but I expect that you'll be villified by the FBI if you threaten their
credibility in any small way. Careful, though, or search and rescue will be
scraping you off a tree at Tahoe :) (And you didn't think you could ski)

> I'll grant extreme errors of judgement in the decision to go ahead after

> surprise had been lost.

Errors. You've got a lot more self-control than I would. Your dad faced the
reality of the situation. How does he feel about Sarabyn and
"Get-Me-the-Hell-Outta-Here!" Chojnacki (and their superiors that probably
ordered them to go on with the raid, regardless of the loss of surprise)?

> I'll support a dissolution of ATF.

I'd wonder what Libertarian in their right mind wouldn't. FBI folks really
need to find honest employment, too.

ATF leadership was mendacious and criminally negligent, but the FBI was
absolutely insidious in their intentional homicidal and subsequent cover-ups.
Almost like the difference between a drunk driver who kills a carload of six
and a seasoned hitman who calmly snuffs 76 'targets.'

Lynette
--

..

[RGlenCheek]

SOATF, glad to see you still participating.

SOATF wrote:
>In article <891607808$20...@black-helicopter.psychetect.com>,
> rgche...@aol.com (RGCheek388) wrote:
>>
>>
>> I finally saw Waco,Rules of Engagement, and I am more convinced than ever
>of
>> the gross injustice, the bloody massacre, that occured there. This >>movie
did an
>> excellent job in portraying what, from my POV, are indisputable facts.
>>
>> 1) The Feds have repeatedly lied about this whole thing:
>>

SOATF, I'm glad to see you arent arguing the FLIR tapes.

>> b) The ATF lied about there being no machine gun fire from helicopters
>in
>> the initial assault. What the government negotiators finally admit is that
>> there were no MOUNTED machine guns in those helicopters, but there were men
>> armed with automatic rifles in those helicopters and they did fire at the
>BD's.
>>
>
>No one ever admitted that there were any automatic weapons aboard the
>helicopters.
>1) There were not
>2) There were handguns with the agents aboard, but
>3) The doors of the helicopters were never opened while in filght.
>

The taped conversation the negotiator had with the BD's has him admitting that
the claim of 'no machinegins' was a denial of _mounted_ machineguns. It is
typical of the "I didnt inhale" denials of various malfeance this
administration has been caught in over the years. And the tape clearly shows
the doors open on the choppers, SOATF.

>
>> c) The ATF lied about what they were conducting their raid for. They got
>the
>> warrant claiming that the BD's had illegal full auto rifles in their
>posession,
>> but this was NEVER proven in court or before Congress, in fact the
>government
>> refused to give the weapons over for outside inspection untill well after
>the
>> feds could have altered them themselves.
>
>Then no chain of evidence is, or can be, good enough.
>
>It must have been proven in court to support the charges against Fatta.
>

I think the BD's modified the rifles AFTER the initiation of the assault.
There are ways to determine when the weapons were modified, but the government
wont let any outsiders do the analysis, not even the independent experts
Congress sent in cooperation with the NRA. If the truth is on the government
side, then, hell, just bring those weapons out and have them analyzed! Why not,
if what they say is true? The impression left is that they are not telling the
truth.

>Even if it weren't, what about Ron Cole's admission on this group that the
>BDs
>had automatic weapons that they had converted themselves?
>

See above.

> They lied to the military about
>there
>> supposedly being a meth lab at the BD's home. There never was ANY evidence
>> provided of this, in fact the feds seem to have tacitly acknowleged that
>this
>> was a lie from the beginning; a thin veneer given to the military to
>justify
>> their assault training by the military in violation of the posse comitatus
>> laws.
>
>What admission are you refering to?

SOATF? I said a 'tacit' admission; do you want me to quote a tacit
acknowlegement? Your standards of evidence are pretty tough! :)

> There was evidence. And evidence, any
>evidence was all the standard required. Not even probable cause is required
>to obtain the assistance requested.
>

Where? Did Rodriguez see it? Why wasnt it on any other documents like the one
for the 'knock first' warrant? Since the feds bulldozed the whole place, no one
can expect to find such proof there now. Could it be the two are connected?
Thats why the Argentines prevented their own government from levelling the
Naval mechanical building in Buenos Aries, where thousands are thought to have
been kidnapped, tortured, and killed by the Argentine military, our good allies
at the time. They wanted to preserve whatever evidence might still come to
light. Obviously, the Feds have this in mind as well.

Thats my point, SOATF. If they are a cult, they still have the same rights as
any other American till the law is broken. The government PR machine has
essentially gotten the public to think of the BD's in dehumanized terms. "These
werent typical Americans, they were a cult and who knows what they might have
done?" is the mindset the government tried and succeded in creating in the
public's mind.

>> e) The feds repeatedly have lied about the claims that V Howell molested
>> these children. The one girl presented in front of Congress had been
>> discreditted before, and their origen was in a divorce custody battle
>between a
>> BD mother and a nonBD father who thought such charges would get him custody
>> (they did). When the local child welfare officials investigated the matter
>they
>> found NO evidence to support the claims the girl made.
>
>No relation between Kiri Jewell and the charges investigated by Texas Child
>Welfare. Different incidents.

You may be right, but I understand that there was an informal visit to check
out those charges by the Texas child welfare agency after the divorce in
question. I may be wrong, but the fact remains, no molestation charges were
ever proven, and in any case are immaterial.

>
>Other charges were
>> similarly made and were also found to have no merit.
>
>This is true.
>

Your honesty, SOATF, is one of the reasons I truly enjoy your participation on
MAM.

>> 2) The Feds have destroyed/obscurred evidence that would condemn their
>> conduct.
>> a) The front doors of the BD's home would prove who was lying about the
>> initial confrontation in the ATF raid, as each insisted the other fired
>first
>> through those doors. The Feds have somehow managed to 'lose' this set of
>metal,
>> double doors, and they were not consumed in the fire. Anyone with a brain
>knows
>> what really happened here.
>
>The door, if it showed what I beleive whoud be found, i.e. bullet holes going
>both ways, would proove what?
>

Then bring out the doors! Where are they? How in the world do you lose a double
set of metal doors? Again, it smacks of such easy convenience; "Teacher, the
dog ate my homework!" That might work once, but for the doors, the video, the
coroners tape, etc, all of this? It stretches credulity too much, IMO.

>> b) The ATF was video taping the initial assault, and most of the
>videotape
>> that could have provided key evidence of the assault, and who started the
>gun
>> fire, have been mysteriously 'blanked'. Again, it doesnt take a rocket
>> scientist to figure this one out either.
>
>Not blanked. Ran out. Since video tapes are of standard lengths, that they
>all "blanked" at about the same time is no great mystery.
>

SOATF, they really ran out just as the raid started? Please, and all at the
same time? Is the ATF just that incompetent? This Keystone Cop defence is just
too much!

>
>> e) The individual after action reports of the ATF agents of the initial
>> raid were aborted. The officials explained that this could be evidence
>used
>to
>> clear the BD's later. This is a tacit admission of who was at fault for the
>> bloody massacre.
>
>At the request of the Justice Department. ATF is still hot about it.

They should be. It makes them look like murderers.

>My
>father intends to complete the shooting review for the book he and I are
>going
>to start after he retires.

I would be extremely interested in reading it. I still maintain that the rank
and file of the ATF are good, fine agents. It seems, however, that they are
riven with corrupt, and incompetent officers at critical positions. Given your
character shown in your participation on MAM, I believe your father is
definately not in the category of officer I am condemning here. The apple
doesnt roll too far from the tree.

>>
>> 3) The initial ATF raid was mismanaged, poorly organized, and incompetently
>> executed from the start.
>
>I'll grant extreme errors of judgement in the decision to go ahead aftert
>surprise had been lost.
>

How can an officer in charge of a surprize raid, continue the mission after
knowing the target has a 30 minute notice? Especially considering that the BD's
had the ability to convert the upper recievers to full auto?
I think the BDs could have killed everone of the ATF agents there. The next
time, that might actually happen.

>>It was plainly a PR scheme from the word go, and
>>even
>> losing the element of surprise 30MINUTES beforehand did not persuade them
>to
>> call off their wonderful show. Yes, it truly was "showtime" for the ATF,
>and
>> clearly they showed that the ATF should be immediately disbanded before
>they
>> massacre some other innocent community of Americans.
>>
>
>I'll support a dissolution of ATF.
>

In view of the official's corruption, I would agree, but would try to salvage
the rank and file by transferring them to other agencies. And I would strip gov
regs, especially all the anti-gun laws, to the bare minimum, but that is a
different subject/fantasy.

>
>> My own wife, a typical loyal American who has debated various topics with
>me
>> over the years, was completely convinced by this movie. If there is anyone
>on
>> this planet inoculated to shocking evidence of gross injustice, it is she.
>> Waco, the Rules of Engagement, has opened her eyes, and she no longer
>believes
>> that the government was justified in what it did, nor that the Branch
>Davidians
>> deserved the horrid fate they recieved, either. If this movie can persuade
>her,
>> it can persuade anyone with an open mind. If you have any concern about the
>> abuse of state power, see this movie.
>
>
>Then the movie served the purpose for which it was tailored.
>
>And it was tailored.

SOATF, all movies are editted/tailored, no? I dont think the producers had
their final POV when they started. Ironically, it has become a new fixture of
the "Oliver Stone" Left.

RGlenCheek

[Mike Schneidér]

Waco: The Rules of Engagement," the much ballyhooed "documentary"
on Waco, is a hoax.

Yes, this review is long, but WTROE contains many lies that
need to be exposed.

A copy of the script is attached in the accompanying zip file.
Read the review and script, and go see "Waco: the Rules of
Engagement." You will have a primer on disinformation techniques.

You can find both the review and the script in the Burial Gallery
of the Waco Holocaust Electronic Museum at:

http://www.Public-Action.com/SkyWriter/WacoMuseum/burial/doc/wtroe.html

including a PK zipped text package for download.

============================
Waco "Documentary" Is A Hoax!
Copyright 1997, by Carol A. Valentine
Published by Public Action, Inc.

OK. I've sat through two showings and studied the script. I've
looked at the web page and read the reviews.

"Waco: The Rules of Engagement" the much ballyhooed "documentary"
on Waco, is a hoax. It is an effort to misdirect and muffle protest
over Waco under pretense of protest and opposition.

It hides the most damaging truths and misdirects attention to false
issues. Thus it neutralizes outrage that would be felt if the true
facts were known. It forwards murder charges based on weak
evidence; once the charges are discredited, the public will be
inoculated against considering real evidence that the Davidians
were murdered. And it chills sympathy for the Davidians as victims.

In a nutshell:

1. WTROE makes its gravest charge against the FBI--that adult
Davidians were machine-gunned as they ran from the burning
Mt. Carmel Center on April 19, 1993--on a single piece of contested
evidence. That evidence is the Forward-Looking Infra Red (FLIR)
film taken by government forces on April 19, 1993.

2. WTROE does not question the veracity of this evidence, even
though the source is the FBI, the very agency WTROE is accusing of
murder.

3. WTROE argues that the Davidian mothers and children were not
deliberately murdered and that their deaths were the unintended
result of the CS attack and fire.

In forwarding this argument, WTROE accepts without question other
highly suspect "evidence" from the FBI, apparently oblivious to the
FBI's track record of destroying, manufacturing, and doctoring
evidence.

4. WTROE ignores a wealth of convincing evidence from a number of
sources which confirms the Davidian mothers and children were
deliberately murdered.

5. WTROE fabricates a "they died of cyanide poisoning" story to
explain the deaths of the children.

6. WTROE makes blatantly false statements about the Davidian
Autopsy Reports and "official" causes of death.

7. WTROE dilutes outrage over Waco by showcasing the most
repellent accusation against the Davidians.

8. WTROE dilutes outrage over Waco by suggesting the atrocity was,
in part, a product of the Davidians' belief system.

9. WTROE reasserts the obviously false accounts of April 19
events, as told by some surviving Davidians -- that the majority of
Davidians were alive during the CS attack and fire and died as a
result of those events. The message is: "They were alive on April 19,
they really were . . . " (Except for those who got mowed down by FBI
machine gun fire, see 1 and 2, above).

10. WTROE protects the US military by casting Waco as a "law
enforcement" event. This, despite overwhelming and obvious evidence
that that it was a military operation from the beginning to the
end.

Why Was It Made?

Psychological warfare is the most powerful weapon in the arsenal of
military special operations efforts. This special form of warfare
seeks to achieve social and political control of a populace by
managing and manipulating human emotion and attitudes towards
public issues.

The aim is to create a compliant population and destroy political
opposition without the expense and trouble of conventional warfare.
When the USSR did it, we called it "propaganda."

These tactics were used for decades by the CIA/US military in their
"counterinsurgency" efforts in foreign countries, by the FBI within
the United States during the COINTELPRO days of the 1960s, and are
being used by the Pentagon and other agencies in this country right
now. WTROE is a prime example.

One thing is clear: The US military and its agents fear the
people's reaction to Waco. They fear that a demand for the
prosecution of the murderers of the Branch Davidians will grow and
become a common rallying cry for all people who are deeply
concerned with the way things are going in the US.

Liberals have long deplored US military/intelligence atrocities
overseas, and have been sympathetic to powerful US domestic
government. On the other hand, conservatives have turned a blind
eye to US military/intelligence atrocities overseas, and have
deplored a powerful US domestic government.

But Waco introduced a hybrid: domestic government agencies, using
military tactics and equipment on American soil, killing American
families in their home. Today, with Waco as a catalyst, liberals
and conservatives are undergoing a melt-down in their thinking.
That could spell danger for the Garrison State. What would happen
if old-line liberals and old-line conservatives realized they had a
common interest in halting the militarization of America?

The emotions and attitudes of the US public must therefore be
carefully managed to check this change in public thinking. Enter
the counterinsurgency squad, the information warriors. Enter
"Waco: The Rules of Engagement."

Not A Documentary

WTROE is advertised as a film. It is not. It is a video, copied
onto 16/35 mm film for theater showings. That's right, it is just
a glorified video.

WTROE is advertised as a documentary. It is not. A documentary is
an examination of a subject using documentation and logic,
presenting information in a logical progression. Premises are
clearly stated, and rational conclusions follow.

WTROE is a collage, a stew pot of imagery scattered across the
screen. It takes themes from the Waco saga, introduces them, drops
them, picks them up again, and scatters them over time. In WTROE,
images and impressions are presented on the screen as pieces of
glass in a kaleidoscope. What you see depends on your point of
view.

The collage format reveals the intent of the video. Using the
collage technique, the producers slyly take hold of the viewer's
emotional shirtsleeve. They skew emphases, tell outright lies,
lead the viewer to conclusions based upon false premises, and leave
the impression that they have covered the subject.

For those who are already convinced that the government murdered
the Davidians, WTROE presents footage that allegedly shows the
Davidians being mowed down by FBI machine guns as they try to flee
the building. Unfortunately, experts come forward after the
release of WTROE to disagree on what the footage shows.

But for those who are convinced the government merely "made
mistakes" and the Davidians were religious fanatics and child
abusers, WTROE presents lots of supporting evidence for them to be
confirmed in their opinions. All the old allegations against the
Davidians--from Koresh's alleged womanizing, child molestation,
illegal guns, weird religious beliefs, you name it--are exhumed and
showcased. WTROE is carefully engineered to change few opinions,
despite hype to the contrary.

The result is a thoroughly ambivalent message: Nothing is
communicated that is not already in the mind of the viewer. Fired
with rage and disgust, the two sides of the issue are even less
capable of communicating. Playing one side against the other--the
balance is perfect, and the murderers are safe.

Prosecuting Waco in the Court of Public Opinion

Those who publicly claim the Branch Davidians were murdered with
malice aforethought are acting as prosecutors of the murderers in
the court of public opinion. If the prosecution argues effectively
and persistently over time and convinces the public with hard
evidence, the prosecution will win. Public sentiment may then
demand that the murderers of the Branch Davidians be prosecuted in
courts legally empowered to punish. The Pentagon might even suffer
severe reductions in budget.

But if the prosecution's case is poorly argued in the court of
public opinion, the case will fail, the push for legal prosecution
will fizzle out, and the murderers will continue to walk free among
us. The US military/government wants this to happen, of course.

That's why so much hangs on how the case against the murderers is
argued. That's why so much hangs on the quality of evidence
brought to the jury--in this case, the public.

Gravest Charge Based on Weakest Evidence

WTROE rests its gravest charge against the FBI--the charge of
deliberate murder--on aerial footage of the Mt. Carmel Center taken
on the day of the fire. The footage was taken by a surveillance
plane equipped with Forward-Looking Infrared (FLIR) equipment which
records differences in heat on the ground.

The resulting FLIR footage, of course, must be interpreted by an
expert. Classically, whenever you rely on high-tech, esoteric
evidence that must be interpreted by experts, other experts will
disagree on what the evidence shows.

The FLIR expert interviewed in WTROE says the footage shows a rapid
fire weapon being fired at the back of the Mt. Carmel Center. The
narrator says two men were firing machine guns at the Branch
Davidians who were trying to escape from the burning building.

"Experts Disagree"

Of course, other experts have come forward since the release of
WTROE to dispute the claim that the footage shows gun fire. No so,
they say. The Washington Post ran an article on April 18, 1997
"Still Burning," in which reporters tell us that they saw the FLIR
tapes in the FBI's audiovisual lab, where film quality was far
superior to the footage in WTROE. Of course.

After viewing the FLIR footage, The Post reporters took a one-hour
excerpts to 12 FLIR experts. What did these experts find? Why,
the experts disagreed. Some saw gunfire. Some saw sunlight
reflections.

"How could so many analysts come to such different conclusions?"
asks the Post, and then supplies the answer: "Reading FLIR, it
turns out, is as much an art as it is a science . . . Everyone sees
things differently." So much for the case that the government
machine-gunned the Branch Davidians on April 19.

No Questions Asked About FLIR Tape

Facts:

* The FLIR footage was taken by the FBI on the day of the fire.

* WTROE uses the FBI's footage.

* The FBI lab has already been caught faking evidence in high
profile cases.

Question: Why would anyone accept the FLIR tape at face value, and
not raise the question of possible doctoring?

* Since April 19, 1993, the FBI has been accused of murdering the
Davidians.

Question: Why would the FBI hand over FLIR tape that could be used
to bolster a murder case against them?

Answer: The US military were the prime movers in Waco. The
February 28, 1993 raid was a military event, no matter how labeled.
The FBI is a front for the US military--the deputy director (read:
director) of the FBI's Domestic Terrorism Section is Col. Jeff
Ellis, an active duty member of the US Army.

Yes, Col. Ellis is active duty Army, despite the provisions in the
U.S. Constitution and the U.S. Code at 18 U.S.C. 1385 ("The Posse
Comitatus Act") which prohibit the use of U.S. Military for law
enforcement. There could hardly be a more brazen or flagrant
violation than an active duty U.S. military person serving as the
Deputy Director of the "Domestic Terrorism" section of the FBI.

So it makes sense to let the "FBI" take the heat. The FBI releases
tape that can be ballyhooed as evidence of murder. Then the tape
can be shot down as inconclusive. When that happens, the case
against the "FBI" will be discredited. The US military will not be
brought into the picture. Voila!

The strategy has worked so far. Well, almost.

Aunt Tillie & Waco: The Rules of Engagement

To gain more understanding of this strategy, let's look at a
hypothetical case. Aunt Tillie was murdered in her kitchen with a
meat ax. Joe Bloe was seen entering Aunt Tillie's house with a
meat ax. Neighbors heard Aunt Tillie screaming, "Stop, it Joe!"
Joe was seen running from Aunt Tillie's with blood on his hands.
Aunt Tillie's body bears wounds consistent with ax-blade chops.
Joe's ax is found next to Aunt Tillie's body, and it bears his
fingerprints. Joe is arrested for the murder of Aunt Tillie.

But when the case comes to trial, the prosecutor ignores all this
compelling evidence and instead claims Joe ran over Aunt Tillie
with a two-ton truck at a construction site on the other side of
town. The jury hears the case. During cross-examination it
becomes obvious the prosecution has no compelling evidence. The
jury finds Joe not guilty. Why? Because the prosecutor has no
evidence to back up his charge of murder-with-a-two-ton-truck. So
Joe Bloe, who really did murder Aunt Tillie, goes free.

Similarly, in the courtroom of public opinion, the WTROE
prosecution presents evidence that will be shot down by any
moderately competent cross examination.

Discrediting charges based on weak evidence that the Davidians were
murdered will have an important propaganda benefit: charges based
on solid evidence will be dismissed as already "disproved." That
is, the discredited WTROE charges will be used to inoculate the
public against real evidence that was ignored in this production.

Discussion of this technique can be found in David Martin's
"Thirteen Techniques for Truth Suppression," in the Library of the
Waco Holocaust Electronic Museum. See Technique No. 4.

http://www.Public-Action.com/SkyWriter/WacoMuseum/library/martin1.html

Issues of Fact and Tissues of Lies

How dumb do they think the US public is? The research director and
co-producer of WTROE is Michael McNulty. Mr. McNulty makes a
series of startling, unfounded, and insupportable statements while
telling this false story about the deaths of the mothers and
children. For example:

"The actual cause of each Davidian's death remains officially
unknown because the FBI interfered with the coroner's
investigation" (Script, pg. 39).

Not so. The "official" cause of each Davidian's death is given in
the Autopsy Report and Death Certificate. You can examine many of
the Autopsy Reports and "official" causes of death yourself at

http://www.Public-Action.com/SkyWriter/WacoMuseum/death/map/d_list00.html

On July 2, 1997, this writer called the office of the Justice of
the Peace, Precinct 2, McLennan County, Texas (where Mt. Carmel was
situated). According to the Judge's assistant, Belinda, no changes
have been made since the autopsies were done and the death
certificates signed in 1993. On the same date, a similar call to
the Records Custodian at the Office of the Chief Medical Examiner
in Tarrant County, Texas, confirmed what Judge Collier's office had
reported.

Certainly Dr. Nizam Peerwani, Chief Medical Examiner of Tarrant
County, a man known for incompetence, was chosen to conduct the
Davidian autopsies. Certainly the manner in which those autopsies
were conducted violated many professional and scientific standards.
Certainly many of the "official" causes of death are not correct.
But despite what WTROE says, each of the 80-odd autopsies contains
an officially assigned cause of death. They were assigned in 1993,
and remain "official" today.

Questionable Claim of Cyanide Deaths

Showing us a picture of a child's body, WTROE narrator McNulty tells
us:

"Besides gun shot wounds, the majority of bodies had high levels of
hydrogen cyanide--the deadly poison produced when CS burns. The
backward bowed corpse of this eight year old girl shows what
cyanide does to the human body. It makes muscles contract so
violently that they can actually break bones." (Script, pg. 39).

Wait a minute. Run that by us again. ". . . the majority of bodies
had high levels of hydrogen cyanide--the deadly poison produced
when CS burns."

But bodies commonly contain hydrogen cyanide residue after a
fire. Forensic pathologist Dr. Michael Baden is a former chief
medical examiner in New York City. In his book "Unnatural
Death--Confessions of a Medical Examiner" (Random House, 1989), he
cites a not atypical case when cyanide was introduced into lungs
and blood of airplane crash victims from burning plastics in the
plane (pg. 39). So cyanide can easily be released in a fire in
ordinary circumstances, without the presence of CS.

Let's look further. The bodies of the Davidian mothers and
children were found in a windowless concrete room. The only
ventilation came through a door opening (the door had been removed
years before). Arguably, the atmosphere in this room would have
been relatively uniform.

Yet research director McNulty fails to tell us that while some of
the children's bodies contained cyanide, some had no traces of
cyanide at all. This phenomenon is neither mentioned nor
explained.

Showing a picture of the corpse of a child, WTROE makes this
statement: "The backward bowed corpse of this eight year old girl
shows what cyanide does to the human body. It makes muscles
contract so violently that they can actually break bones."
(Script, pg. 39). Taken as a whole, this statement, along with the
previous statements, gives us the impression that CS produced
hydrogen cyanide in the concrete room, and, due to this, the
specific child shown in the photograph died of cyanide poisoning.

Yet according to the autopsy reports, neither this child nor any
other Davidian died of cyanide poisoning. On what expert opinion
is WTROE relying? According to the narration, WTROE is relying on
the words of a scientist from the Environmental Protection Agency
discussing muscular contractions in cyanide gas executions. We are
not told whether this scientist is an experienced pathologist who
has performed autopsies on victims of poisoning.

But let's see what Dr. Baden says in his book, "Unnatural Death,"
about the symptoms of cyanide poisoning. In describing one
murderer's account of killing with cyanide, he quotes the murderer:

"It's quiet, it's not messy, it's not noisy . . . there's even a
spray mist around . . . you spray it in somebody's face and they go
to sleep . . . " said the murderer. Baden tells how the murderer
(a professional hit man) described a test murder he had committed
on the street.

The murderer simply walked along in a crowd with a handkerchief
over his nose and sprayed the victim in the face. Did the man go
into violent convulsions? No. "The man collapsed and died, and
everyone thought he'd had a heart attack," says Baden (pg. 128.)
Hardly the effect described by WTROE.

Let's turn to another commonly available, reputable source for
information on the symptoms associated with cyanide poisoning. The
Encyclopedia Brittanica (15th ed., 1994) has this to say:

"Acute poisoning from hydrogen cyanide or the cyanides is
manifested by dizziness, nausea, staggering, and loss of
consciousness."

WTROE should have at least checked the local library. Either of
these commonly available sources should have raised a flag. Yes,
research is needed on the significance of cyanide traces in some
Davidian bodies. But not the kind of research WTROE has done.

Let's look at what Dr. Baden says about another poison:

"Strychnine also acts quickly, but not as fast as cyanide. Unlike
cyanide, it is painful. It's like an electrical wire gone wild,
with sparks going off in all directions, disrupting the orderly
progress of nerve impulses. The body goes out of control and into
convulsions, arching backward, and the muscles of the face contort
into the unmistakable risus sardonicus--sardonic grin. The
convulsions prevent breathing . . . " (pg. 39.)

So, then, agents other than cyanide could have been responsible for
the backward bowing of the child's body in the photograph. Even in
this one case, is there any other evidence that led WTROE to come
up with its "death by cyanide" conclusion? If so, it's a shame
they did not share it with the audience.

Part 2 to follow.

===
Carol A. Valentine
President, Public Action, Inc.

Have you seen the Waco Holocaust Electronic Museum?
See what they did to the mothers and children--

http://www.Public-Action.com/SkyWriter/WacoMuseum

===

Note to readers: Go to Museum Burial Gallery.
Download the complete script of hoax documentary "Waco: The Rules of
Engagement."
Download the analysis and review. Then see the "documentary."
You will have an object lesson on disinformation. It is a technique
that can be understood.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
To prevent email spam, my email address is altered. To reach me, you
must replace everything before the @ with "mike1" and delete any CAPS.

Surviving without a Slave Number: http://www.ime.net/none/
Welcome to Rancho Runnamukka: http://www.accessone.com/~rivero/
A Military Action: http://www.Public-Action.com/SkyWriter/WacoMuseum
Ian Goddard's TWA-800 site: http://www.erols.com/igoddard/twa-core.htm
They screwed people left and right. http://users.aol.com/beachbt/screwold.txt

[Mike Schneidér]

>============================
Waco "Documentary" Is A Hoax!
Copyright 1997, by Carol A. Valentine
Published by Public Action, Inc.

Part 3

Showcasing A Repulsive Charge

Any movement to prosecute the murderers of the Branch Davidians is
fueled by public outrage at the crime. Cool the outrage and you
neutralize the movement for legal prosecution. And there is no
better way to cool the outrage than by presenting the Davidians as
repulsive people who were all complicit in the sexual abuse of
children.

During the 1995 House of Representatives hearings on Waco, 14-year
old Kiri Jewell told the impaneled congressmen that David Koresh
sexually assaulted her when she was just ten years old. WTROE
showcases her accusation. (Script, pg. 8)

Kiri Jewell says: "I was brushing my hair, sitting in a chair and
David took me, told me to come sit by him on the bed. I was
wearing a long white tee shirt and panties. He kissed me and sat
there, but then he laid me down. Then he took his penis . . . "
The scene fades out, but not before the last line delivers its
wallop: "Then he took his penis . . . "

Remember that Kiri Jewell was 10-years old at the time of the
alleged incident. Ugh--this stuff is enough to turn anyone's
stomach, and the WTROE producers had to know it. The sexual
misconduct charges could have been covered without this emotional
wallop, and the WTROE producers had to know that, too.

WTROE then shows the Davidian "defense" attorneys disputing Kiri's
claim. How do they do that? Jack Zimmermann says they had not
heard the charge before it was made that day in Congress. He also
says: "There's been doubts about contradictory statements that
she's made in the past. Now, it may be 100 percent true."
(Script, pg. 9.)

Wow! What a defense. Notice how WTROE juxtaposed so powerful an
accusation against so weak a defense. The effect gives the
Davidians a black eye: David Koresh was a criminal pervert, and the
Branch Davidians complicit in his crimes.

The showcasing of sexual misconduct allegations provided a public
opinion climate that allowed the murderers to commit their deeds,
and allow them to get away with their crimes even now. Thus those
charges are part of the story. But again: the movie focuses undue
time and attention on the charges, goes to great pains to assure
the audience those charges are valid, and presents the charges in a
manner that ensures the audience will feel revulsion for the
Davidians.

To reinforce the picture of the Davidians as a child-molesting
community, clips of Sheriff Harwell are presented:

"To this day, we don't have a case against Vernon Howell or anyone
else for child abuse . . . " (Script, pg. 9). But then Harwell
admits: "Keep in mind, too, that most of the girls who were
involved were at least 14 years old and that 14 year olds get
married with parental consent. So if their parents were there and
letting things happen in the way of sexual activities and what have
you . . . I don't say that I agree with that and that I approve it.
But at the same time, if parents are there and they're giving
parental consent . . . " (Script, pg. 21).

Note the sheriffs words: ". . . most of the girls who were
involved were at least 14 years old . . . " Things seem to be going
from bad to worse. Now there are other Kiri Jewells? Too bad we
can't hear from David Koresh, but remember, he is conveniently
dead, and mute.

Dick Reavis, who is pictured throughout the WTROE as reasonable and
"sympathetic" to the Davidians, delivers the coup de grace: "My
investigations convinced me that David Koresh was guilty of
statutory rape . . . " (Script, pg. 9).

What does all this have to do with the February 28 raid by the ATF?
Again, here is where the disjointed collage technique is used to
great effect. One of the "independent" reviewers of the Treasury
Report, Henry S. Ruth, Jr., says this:

"At least part of the ATF motivation, even if it never rose to the
surface of discussion, was to enforce the morals of our society.
To enforce the psyche of right thinking by retaliating against
these odd people." (Script, pg. 13).

Thus we come full circle. The Branch Davidian community endorsed
and was complicit in the sexual abuse of young girls. The ATF
stood tall for truth, justice, apple pie, and the virginity of
young girls. The ATF was only trying to make the Davidians go
straight . . .

Who comes out stinking, and who comes out smelling like roses?
Thus is protest neutralized by psychological warfare.

Takes Attention Off US Military

Now we get down to the heart of the matter: The rock bottom purpose
of "Waco: The Rules of Engagement" is to take the heat off the US
military.

If it looks like a duck, if it talks like a duck, if it quacks like
a duck--its a duck. The Waco operation was planned and executed
from the beginning to the end as a military action, not a civilian
law enforcement action. It was planned by military men, trained by
military men, and used military techniques. Military equipment was
on the scene from Day One. Yet WTROE presents the raid as a law
enforcement action.

Again, evidence of the military nature of the attack was known to
WTROE director of research Mike McNulty when the video was being
researched and produced in the Fall of 1996. See:

http://www.Public-Action.com/SkyWriter/WacoMuseum/war/war.html

The Waco Holocaust Electronic Museum has publicly available
documentation of this phenomenon and McNulty told me he was
familiar with the Museum. Because the documentation came from
official and quasi-official sources, WTROE could have included the
facts without even acknowledging the Museum for its research. But
instead, the documentation was ignored.

WTROE blames the ATF alone for the February 28 raid, while the US
military is presented as benign fools who were sucked into lending
their equipment and expertise to the disreputable ATF. WTROE
presents the ATF as follows:

* The ATF is deceitful: The tricked the US military into providing
help. (Script, pg. 13, Rep. Schiff).

* The ATF lied to the US military because they wanted to freeload
at "US Army expense." (Script, pg. 13, Narrator).

* The ATF pulled off the raid for publicity. (Script, pg. 12,
Sanders)

* ATF wanted to look good for upcoming appropriations hearings
(Script, pg. 12, Narrator).

The raid was a law enforcement action, although heavy-handed and
inept:

* The ATF thought the Davidians were manufacturing machine guns and
explosive devices. They went in to obtain those weapons (Script,
pg. 9, Sarabyn).

* It was an unreasonable search done in an unreasonable manner with
excessive force (Script, pg. 15, DeGuerin).

* It was a sad day for United States law enforcement (Script,
pg. 41, Zimmermann).

* The Davidians found out the ATF was coming, and the element of
surprise was lost (Script, pg. 14, Ehrlich, Rodriguez).

* The ATF was so dumb it didn't even have a real contingency plan,
only an "Oh, shit!" plan, as in "run from the building, take cover,
oh shit, it's coming." (Script, pg. 18, Buyers).

* ATF ran out of ammunition (Script, pg.18, Narrator).

* The ATF caused the disaster of February 28 (Script, pg. 23, Stone).

WTROE utterly ignores contemporaneous history which shows the US
military is quite capable of setting up phoney incidents to advance
its own program. This happened during the Vietnam War, where for
six months the US military conducted a secret terror campaign
against the North Vietnamese, provoked an incident in the Gulf of
Tonkin, and claimed the US had been victimized.

Consider these factors.

* Special Forces is the creme de la creme of the US Army. Its
personnel often take part in Special Operations Command junkets,
conducting secret assassinations and other illegal acts of war
overseas. Special Forces are experts in conducting surprise
(secret) raids.

* Special Forces trained the ATF for the raid at Ft. Hood.

* Special Forces practiced the raid plan with the ATF on mock-ups
of the Mt. Carmel Center, so they were intimately familiar with the
strategy and tactics to be used.

* The ATF claimed to have gathered "evidence" that Mt. Carmel
Center was (1) a fortress, (2) had a lookout tower, (3) had guard
armed with machine guns, and (4) the Branch Davidians were looking
forward to an armed confrontation with authorities. This
"information" should have been incorporated into any raid plan.

* For months before the raid, the house across the street from the
Mt. Carmel Center was filled with ATF undercover agents. The
Davidians knew they were undercover agents. David Koresh watched
them with binoculars, and told them so. This information should
have been incorporated into any raid plan.

Yet this is the plan the Special Forces helped execute:

* The "secret" raid was to be conducted in broad daylight, at
10:00 am, when the Davidians would be alert and active.

* The press was tipped off to the "secret" 10 am raid. Such a
furor was caused that on the morning of the raid, five media vans
were either stationed or driving around the Mt. Carmel Center.

* The ATF booked 153 rooms at three local hotels for the evening
February 28, an action ensured to draw attention.

* The ATF traveled from Ft. Hood to their staging area in a caravan
one mile long, an action certain to draw public attention.

* The ATF arrived in noisy cattle cars over gravel roads marred by
potholes, an action that would surely alert the "machine-gun armed
guards in the look-out towers."

* The terrain was flat and treeless. Given the structure of the
building--two to four stories tall--the Special Forces/ATF had to
know the Davidians could see for miles.

* The ATF agents were delivered by canvas covered cattle cars which
pulled up broadside to the Mt. Carmel Center. The ATF agents
inside were sitting ducks, set up for slaughter--the treeless
terrain provided no cover.

But the piece de resistance:

* On the day of the raid a local Waco "cameraman" became "lost" on
the backroads and had to ask directions to the Mt. Carmel Center (a
local landmark). The spot where the "cameraman" became lost was
within sight of the Mt. Carmel Center. While asking directions of
a passer-by, he mentioned the raid. Coincidentally the passer-by
happened to be a Davidian. The Davidian went to the Mt. Carmel
Center and told David Koresh.

In short, every means short of sending them a certified letter was
used to warn the Davidians of the impending raid, and these
measures ensured the greatest possible harm would come to the ATF
agents.

And what happened after four ATF agents were killed? Their deaths
were used as an excuse for military escalation. "The first thing I
did after the ATF agents were killed, once we knew the FBI was
going to go in, was to ask that the military be consulted because
of the quasi-military nature of the conflict . . . " said President
Clinton (Washington Times, April 24, 1993.)

The result of the ensuing siege was an implantation in the American
psyche that armed helicopters, tanks, and sieges play a legitimate
part in US civilian affairs. The military is needed to keep order
at home.

Yet, curiously, the US military shares no blame in WTROE. Who is
responsible for the siege and the resulting April 19 inferno? Why,
the FBI is entirely responsible. The FBI handled the
"negotiations" ineptly. They used the wrong tactics--they used
psychological warfare, they mooned the women--it only made the
Davidians more resistive. The FBI's decision-making process was
flawed and cumbersome. Janet Reno went to Baltimore on the day of
the fire. Her remark about the rent-a-tank was inept. The FBI
should have waited for Koresh to finish writing his treatise on the
Seven Seals, but they got impatient. They abandoned the
negotiation strategy. When the FBI used tanks to deploy CS to drive
the Davidians out . . . well, that was ineptly done, too. They
didn't have a fire plan. The building turned into a fire trap and
the CS turned into cyanide, the children died of cyanide poisoning,
oops! . . . What a tragedy.

Rewriting History

Attempts to rewrite history are often made through the creation of
manufactured evidence. Creative cover stories, designed to
buttress manufactured evidence, often fall apart and have to be
recreated.

Perhaps the best known example of manufactured evidence and
companion cover story concerns Lee Harvey Oswald. Shortly after
his arrest for the assassination of President Kennedy, Oswald was
shown a picture of himself, holding a rifle. Upon seeing the
photo, Oswald said it was not him, that a picture of his face and
head had been superimposed upon another body.

The picture was reproduced in a number of publications in the US,
adding to the public perception of Oswald as a dangerous man. After
Oswald's murder, his widow Marina, anxious not to be deported back
to the Soviet Union, said she had taken the photo. Over time,
however, Marina gave conflicting stories of the circumstances under
which she took the photo.

Research has since shown the photo was forged, as Oswald claimed.
The angle of the shadows falling from Oswald's nose and "Oswald's"
body showed they had been photographed at different times of the
day. The head had indeed been superimposed on the body, as Oswald
charged. (See "High Treason," by Robert J. Groden & Harrison
Edward Livingstone, 1989, Chapter 10).

Since Oswald's day, there has been a quantum leap forward in the
technology of simulation and forgery. The movie "Forrest Gump"
made a big stir several years ago by creating synthesized images
using advanced computerized techniques. Hollywood technicians were
able to craft illusions that made one actor appear as though his
legs were amputated at the knees. Gump also "met" several US
presidents, including President Kennedy.

To achieve this effect, old footage of President Kennedy was
digitized and the image of Gump superimposed in the frame. We even
see and hear President Kennedy making a comment on what Gump has
said to him. To achieve this startling effect, President Kennedy's
mouth was morphed to match the words in the script. An
impressionist provided the "President's" voice. (See "Through the
Eyes of Forrest Gump," by Paramount, 1994.)

Voice simulation has been a reality for years. Sound technicians
can cut and splice audio tapes of a subject's voice and create
words and sentences the subject never mouthed. In one instance
known to this writer, a businessman was making an industrial
training film and wanted a high-priced actor to do the narration.
The budget was limited, and the actor agreed to read the narration
once with no retakes, for a flat fee. After the recording was
made, the businessman listened to the tape and was horrified. The
script contained a critical typographical error. The actor had
read the script correctly, but the script contained the wrong word.
The sound technicians quickly solved the problem for the
cash-strapped producer. They "engineered" the correct word from
recordings of the actor's voice, cut and spliced to form the
desired word.

While this simulation was possible years ago, today's software
technology will even allow pitch mapping so that voice inflections
can be blended. Coincidentally, WTROE co-producer William Gazeki
is a Hollywood sound mixer. He should be familiar with this
technology. Given a little time and a generous budget, an
organization such as the FBI would have a number of ways to fake
audio tapes. Certainly WTROE hints that the feds "disappeared" a
key piece of evidence on who shot first (Script, pg. 14, DeGuerin);
but then Gazeki and his colleagues accept the FBI audio tapes
without question.

The FBI is known to have faked evidence in the New York City World
Trade Center bombing case. With over 80 dead in Waco, the stakes
are even higher. Would the killers not fake Waco evidence too?
With this question in mind, let's look at some excerpts from
"negotiation" tapes made during the siege by the FBI:

The conversation between ATF's Jim Cavanaugh and David Koresh
(Script, pgs. 21, 22, 23) over gunfire from the helicopters on
February 28 goes this way: Cavanaugh says ". . . there was no guns
on those helicopters. There was National Guard officers on those
helicopters . . . " After arguing, Cavanaugh concedes: "What' I'm
telling you is there was no mounted guns, ya know, outside mounted
guns on those helicopters . . . After more arguing, Koresh agrees
the guns were not mounted. How believable is this conversation?
Let's look at it from two perspectives.

You are a Davidian, it is Sunday morning, February 28, 1993, when
all of a sudden three helicopters fly over your home and strafe it
with machine gun fire. So instead of diving for cover you gaze up
at the helicopters to see if the guns are mounted or hand held.

Now let's change perspective. You are one of the agents (or
"National Guardsmen") and you intend to strafe the Mt. Carmel
Center from the air. You are going to fly in Army helicopters (two
Black Hawks and a Little Bird, unmarked and black in color, in the
fashion of the 160th Special Operations Airborne Regiment). So you
unmount the fixed guns that are customarily on such combat
aircraft--because on this mission you prefer to strafe using
hand-held guns.

Neither scenario rings true. But Waco: The Rules of Engagement
asks us to buy both. Who gains and who loses from this
presentation? The audience blames the ATF agents and the "National
Guardsmen" with their hand-held guns. The US military, with its
combat helicopters and strafing guns, gets no share of the blame.
Once again the reputation of the US military is protected.

Likewise the "bug" tapes allegedly taken by FBI surveillance
equipment on April 19, 1993 should be viewed skeptically. They
come from the same tarnished single source, and function to
buttress the same tired story about events on April 19--that the
majority of the Davidians were alive during the CS attack, the fire
was an accident, and the Branch Davidians died as a result of the
CS attack and the fire. See, for example:

Page 31: "Steve Schneider" tells the Branch Davidians to put on
their gas masks (but does not address the lack of gas masks for
children.) What a lucky break for the FBI that their bug happened
to be just at the right spot to pick up "Steve Schneider's" voice!
Message: Davidians were alive when CS attack started.

Page 32: Three excerpts tell us the "Branch Davidians" were pouring
fuel on the day of the fire, wanted to save more fuel for later,
and lamented not having gotten more "hay." Message: The Davidians
helped create a tinder-box which later accidentally caught fire.

Page 36: We hear Davidians discussing the best way to get out: "Go
the other way" and "Too many people," etc. Message: Davidians were
alive at the time of the fire.

WTROE makers rely heavily upon the "Davidian home video" throughout
WTROE, without pointing out that it, too, came from the same single
discredited source--the FBI (Script, pg. 3). When executive
producers Dan Gifford and Amy Sommers Gifford do promotional
interviews they often say only evidence that can be verified from
two sources has been included in the video. This is an unadorned
lie. When single-source evidence comes from the FBI, WTROE
swallows it without question.

The Products of Michael McNulty

Let's look at the track record of WTROE research director Mike
McNulty. Again and again through this review, we have seen his
blind faith in the veracity of FBI video and audio evidence--but he
was not always as trusting.

Several years ago he objected vigorously when another Waco
researcher presented TV clips showing what appeared to be flame
coming out of a tank's cannon as it exited the Mt. Carmel Center on
the day of the fire. In addition, this researcher also presented
clips of footage showing uniformed soldiers at the Mt. Carmel
Center on April 19, soldiers getting out of tanks and walking
around before, during and after the April 19 fire, a soldier
getting out of a tank with a portable fame thrower, soldiers
apparently burning bodies with portable flame throwers, and
soldiers shooting explosive devices into the concrete room where
the mothers and children were found.

Of all this footage, Mr. McNulty singled out the flame-throwing
tank for comment. There was no flame, he said, just pieces of
wallboard stuck on the boom, reflecting the sun. McNulty produced
footage said to show definitively that the "flame" was really
wallboard and took part in a national campaign to discredit the
flame-throwing tank footage.

In the fall of 1996 when discussing the contents of the Waco
Holocaust Electronic Museum with Mr. McNulty, I asked him to send
me the tape upon which he rested his "reflecting wallboard" case.
The tape arrived, and I have studied it. It shows a tank exiting
Mt. Carmel with what appears to be flame coming from the cannon.

As it continues its journey, the tank rolls behind a white van
which is in the foreground (that is, the van is closer to the
camera than the tank.) Had the flame really been wallboard, the
wallboard would have had about the same brightness as the white
van, but that is not the case. The matter on the end of the cannon
is brilliantly incandescent. The van is a dull white.

The matter on the tank cannon could not have been the wallboard
that McNulty claims. As the footage rolls on, the incandescent
matter at the end of the cannon changes shape, eventually growing
dull and flat, then broadening and becoming affixed like wallpaper
to the entire front section of the tank. Unfortunately for
Mr. McNulty, the footage looks as if it was computer enhanced.

Soldier of Fortune magazine reported McNulty's wallboard findings
in its February, 1994 edition (pg. 59). In that edition, Soldier
of Fortune also reported that he had digitized the footage he used
in his study and then had it computer enhanced.

Two months later, Soldier of Fortune published a letter from
Mr. McNulty saying a "small amount of clarification" was
needed--yes, he digitized the footage but did not enhance it.

Some time after that, Linda Thompson, the Waco researcher who had
circulated the TV footage of the flame-throwing tank, was the guest
on a Las Vegas radio talk show hosted by Anthony Hilder. When
Mr. McNulty called in with a question, he admitted that his
research efforts on the flame throwing tank had been sponsored by
Soldier of Fortune magazine.

It would seem, then, that the Soldier of Fortune February 1994
report revealing that Mr. McNulty had digitized and enhanced his
footage was not mere speculation. They had paid him to do the
work. The admission, it seems, was made inadvertently by a writer
unfamiliar with computer graphics who did not realize the
significance of what was being reported.

Soldier of Fortune magazine was founded by Robert K. Brown, a
member of the Delta Force. Delta Force was the name given to a
group of commandos who specialized in covert hit and run missions.
Delta Force relied heavily on its skilled helicopter pilots to
insert and extract troops from enemy terrain. It was the precursor
of the 160th Special Operations Airborne Regiment, headquartered in
Ft. Campbell, Kentucky. The 160th Task Force, as it is sometimes
called, was the helicopter unit that almost certainly strafed the
Mt. Carmel Center on February 28, 1993.

The founder of the Delta Force, Col. Charlie Beckwith, was closely
affiliated with Soldier of Fortune for many years. He was featured
on the masthead of the magazine, and wrote the magazine's first
story covering Waco. It was Col. Beckwith who proclaimed the
February 28, 1993 raid was a "bungled law enforcement effort." He
also wrote he shed tears for the dead ATF agents but made no
mention of shedding tears for the dead Davidians. (See July, 1993
edition.)

So, then, it seems the McNulty research effort on the
flame-throwing tank was sponsored by the same crowd intimately
connected with the execution and cover-up of the Waco Holocaust.
Is this thesis borne out by an examination of Mr. McNulty's work
product over the years?

Certainly. The presence of a flame-throwing tank on the grounds of
Mt. Carmel would destroy the argument that the tanks were there to
spray CS only. The presence of a flame-throwing tank is evidence
of murderous intent on the part of the Pentagon that supplied
it. Grant the presence of a flame-throwing tank, and the
"negligence" excuse used to explain the April 19 deaths falls
apart. So we see Mr. McNulty attempted to destroy the credibility
of the incriminating footage.

And the beat goes on. McNulty is still covering up for the US
military in WTROE. Consider: Despite copious use of video clips in
WTROE, somehow or other the footage showing uniformed soldiers at
Mt. Carmel Center on April 19, footage showing soldiers getting out
of tanks and walking around before, during, and after the April 19
fire, footage showing a soldier getting out of a tank with a
portable fame thrower, footage showing soldiers apparently burning
bodies with portable flame throwers, and footage showing soldiers
shooting explosive devices into the concrete room where the mothers
and children were found--none of this footage made its way into
WTROE.

And despite the copious evidence that the US military was the prime
mover in Waco, McNulty and the other WTROE principals saw fit to
exclude the information from their production (see "Takes Attention
Off US Military"). WTROE's portrayal of the US military as benign
good guys tricked into lending the ATF military equipment never
falters.

The information warriors are riding high in the saddle. The role
of Special Operations in Waco has been successfully buried. As we
go to press, Gen. Henry H. ("Hugh") Shelton, the commander of the
Special Operations Command, and its 160th Task Force, is about to
be confirmed as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. There is
a lot riding on the continued cover-up of the Waco Holocaust.

Using false information to hide the real truth and get people upset
about the wrong things IS the job of the counterinsurgency squad.
And "Waco: The Rules of Engagement" is a primer on the subject.

END

[Thanks to Industrial Light & Magic (San Rafael, California) and
sound engineer Michael Rivero at http://www.accessone.com/~rivero
for assisting with research on special effects.]

Copyright, July, 1997 by Carol A. Valentine, on loan to Public Action,
Inc. Permission is granted to reproduce for non-commercial purposes.

=========================================
Friday, July 18, 1997

[Mike Schneidér]

============================
Waco "Documentary" Is A Hoax!
Copyright 1997, by Carol A. Valentine
Published by Public Action, Inc.

Part 2.

Covers Up the Murders of Mothers and Children

While WTROE makes false and questionable statements about the
Autopsy Reports and causes of death, it ignores real and obvious
cover-ups in the official death stories. An examination of these
problems certainly should have been a part of any "documentary"
touching on the subject.

To begin with, there is the character of the chief medical
examiner, Dr. Nizam Peerwani. As mentioned above, Peerwani had been
known as an incompetent before he was chosen to handle the Davidian
remains. In fact, reputable and qualified medical examiners had
volunteered their facilities and services in handling the
Mt. Carmel deaths, but all were refused in favor of Peerwani's
establishment.

Peerwani was the point man in providing cover stories for many
Davidian deaths and ignored signs of foul play when conducting the
autopsies. He was apparently chosen for this role for his
incompetence and his willingness to say the right things under
oath. (For details, see

http://www.Public-Action.com/SkyWriter/WacoMuseum/death/page/d_h.html

Thus Dr. Peerwani and others at the Tarrant County Medical
Examiner's Office played a vital part in covering up the
murders. Ironically, WTROE shows them in a sympathetic light. Here
is that quote from the narrator again:

"The actual cause of each Davidian's death remains officially
unknown because the FBI interfered with the coroner's

investigation." (Script, pg. 39).

As evidence, clips are shown of Peerwani and another staff member
complaining about their treatment. But during the 1994 San Antonio
trial of the Branch Davidians for the murder of the ATF agents,
Dr. Peerwani testified that the FBI *helped* him with the
autopsies. Peerwani stated that (1) he himself asked the FBI to
send down two Smithsonian Institution forensic anthropologists to
help him in the recovery of the bodies, and the FBI obliged
(Transcript, pg. 6019); and (2) the FBI helped him by supplying him
with fingerprint experts (Transcript, pg. 5962). Much of
Dr. Peerwani's testimony may be found at:

http://www.Public-Action.com/SkyWriter/WacoMuseum/death/
tscr/peerwani/np_test.html

Review the interview of Dr. Peerwani (Script, pg. 39). Then
consider:

* Dr. Peerwani's signature, or the signature of one of his staff
members, appears on each one of the Branch Davidian autopsy
reports. None of the autopsy reports contain any complaint that
the doctors suffered interference in their work from anyone.

WTROE did not confront Dr. Peerwani on this subject.

* Dr. Peerwani and his staff allowed many of the bodies to rot in
the elements--the official recovery maps show that the last body
was recovered on April 29, 1993, ten days after the fire. Allowing
the bodies to rot in the field was no less than destruction of
evidence.

WTROE did not confront Dr. Peerwani on this subject.

* Dr. Peerwani and his staff members omitted estimates of time of
death from each autopsy report. This omission is stunning,
considering much of the work of forensic scientists is directed to
answering this very question: the time of death.

WTROE did not confront Dr. Peerwani on this subject.

* Dr. Peerwani swore under oath in courtroom testimony that many of
the mothers and children died of suffocation and blunt force trauma
when the concrete room (in which they were allegedly seeking
shelter) collapsed. Dr. Peerwani testified he visited the site
shortly after the fire. But pictures taken from the ground and
from the air show that the concrete room did not collapse.

http://www.Public-Action.com/SkyWriter/WacoMuseum/death/page/d_l.html

WTROE did not confront Dr. Peerwani on this almost certainly
perjurious claim.

Promotes False Story on Deaths of Mothers and Children

By far the most politically explosive aspect of the Waco Holocaust
is the way in which the mothers and children met their deaths.
Consider that many of the adult Davidians were accused of shooting
at the FBI agents on April 19, but the mothers and children were
not accused of any crimes. They were utterly innocent before the
world.

In the theater of the Waco information warriors, putting attention
on weak evidence of the murder of those already accused of a crime
sure beats putting attention on the plentiful and compelling
evidence of the murder of the demonstrably innocent.

WTROE forwards the story that the mothers and children died as a
result of government negligence. What is the difference between
negligence and murder? Murder is deliberate. Negligence is simply
the failure to do something a reasonable man would do. Quite a
difference. A person found guilty of murder may be executed or
imprisoned for life. But a finding of negligence demands no such
punishment. (Look up "negligence" in Black's Law Dictionary.)

WTROE argues its "negligence" story of the deaths of the mothers
and children by a kaleidoscopic series of video clips spliced
throughout the movie. We are told this story:

* Except for the six killed on February 28, all other Davidians at
Mt. Carmel on the day of the raid were still alive on April 19;

* During the siege, the government wanted the Davidians to come
out, but some would not because David Koresh wanted to finish his
treatise on the Seven Seals;

* Instead of waiting patiently, on April 19 the FBI attacked the
building with Army tanks and sprayed CS to force the Davidians to
come out right away;

* As the CS attack continued, the mothers and the children fled to
a concrete room to find shelter;

* The children did not have gas masks;

* Through a series of administrative bungles and good-old-fashioned
government incompetence, the government created a firetrap in the
home.

* The Branch Davidians also help create the fire hazard by spilling
fuel around;

* A fire broke out accidentally, and flashed through the building;

* The CS heated up, produced cyanide gas, and killed the children.
Ooops!

There we have it. The government did not intend to kill the
children and mothers. Their deaths were merely the by-product of
negligence during the attempt to force them out of the Mt. Carmel
Center. Simply shouting "murder" at the end won't do. WTROE
blames the children's deaths on negligence, and any judge and jury
will understand.

How Likely Are These Stories?

Early in the presentation, pieces of the collage that is WTROE
shows us the Branch Davidians as a group of people who were
intelligent, practical, courageous, loyal to each other, and
protective of their children. But then WTROE asks us to believe
that on April 19 they became stupid yellow-bellied cowards.

Narrator McNulty tells us: "As the gassing continued, the women and
children went to the safest place left inside Mt. Carmel--the
kitchen storage room, a first floor steel reinforced concrete
room--a former vault--at the bottom of the square wooden tower"
(pg. 35 Script).

* The concrete room had no windows and one doorway with no door.
It formed a cul-de-sac, had no ventilation, and would have been a
catch basin for the CS-poisoned air. The concrete room would be
the worst possible place to shelter from the CS. Why would
intelligent, practical people send mothers and children to this
place? Why would any mother with a grain of common sense go there?
This story is not believable.

[Note: The above version concerning when the mothers and children
went to the concrete room contradicts other versions. Three Branch
Davidians who say they were at Mt. Carmel during the CS attack have
told me in recorded interviews that they did not see the mothers
and children on April 19. Those people are: Clive Doyle, David
Thibodeau, and Graeme Craddock. Clive Doyle quotes another
Davidian, Marjorie Thomas, as saying in sworn testimony that the
mothers and children went to the concrete room the first thing in
the morning on April 19, "on David's orders." From whom did WTROE
get its version of events? The audience is not told.]

* While the mothers had gas masks, the children did not.
Imagine--you are a mother who has a gas mask, but your children and
babies do not. So you take them to a catch basin where the
poisoned air can't blow off (the concrete room) and watch them from
behind your gas mask as they choke and splutter and bubble up their
lungs.

WTROE has Davidian attorney Zimmermann tell us: "And I can just see
those kids barfing, vomiting, screaming because you can't possibly
have a gas mask that will fit a little kid." (Script, pg. 32).

Yet the moms stayed and watched? This story is not believable.

* Speaking of one tank spraying the CS, Clive Doyle says: "They
actually drove right through the middle of the building into the
kitchen area basically at point blank range fired gas into the
concrete, what they called the bunker, the concrete room where the
women and children were." (Script, pg. 35.)

Let's examine this. A tank had smashed its way to the concrete
room to spray the CS. The path made by the retreating tank would
have crushed any debris that might have blocked an exit, and would
have created an ideal path for mothers and children to flee from
the choking CS. Realize that the fire had not broken out by then,
and the cyanide "from the CS" was not yet released and the mothers
and children had not yet "died of cyanide poisoning." Yet they did
not try to escape. The mothers opted to stay inside the concrete
room with their children and babies "barfing, vomiting, screaming"
until the fire broke out and they died of cyanide poisoning.
Believable? No, this story is not easy to believe.

* Meanwhile, when the fire broke out, the other non-mother-and-
children Davidians who were situated close to the concrete room
callously abandoned the mothers (with gas masks) and their children
(in death throes) and headed out the back of the building in an
attempt to save their yellow hides, whereupon they were promptly
mowed down by machine guns.

But . . . why did the would-be escapees not take the mothers and
children with them? Were they not a tight-knit, courageous
community?

* Throughout the morning none of the surviving Davidians checked on
the mothers and children in the concrete room.

David Thibodeau says: "At 12:00 someone yelled from the upstairs
that there was a fire. The front I could not get to because of
what the tanks had come in [sic] so I went to the stairwell in the
back because I'm thinking of the kids, I'm thinking Serenity Sea
Jones, I was thinking of Isaiah and Joseph and some of these kids
that I've come to know and love. There was a cat walk that was
leading over the rafters of the church area I got to a blanket I
opened the blanket up and a wall of flame shoots down the hallway
in front of my face . . . " (Script, pg. 37.)

David Thibodeau has claimed he was married to Michelle Jones, and
loved her three children, Serenity Sea, Chica, and Little One. If
so, how believable is it that he waited for a fire to break out
before he checked on them that morning? After all, he knew the
children did not have gas masks. If the concrete room was the best
place to be during the CS attack, why was he not there with them?
If the concrete room was not the best place to be during the CS
attack, why did David not have Michelle and the three children with
him? After all, he escaped! David Thibodeau's story is not
believable.

* At one point the narrator says of the CS: "Boot camp trainees are
briefly exposed to a mild amount of CS for a few seconds. The
Davidians received more than ten times that dosage--more than twice
the amount known to be fatal--for more than six hours." (Script,
pg. 31),

Hold that frame. There is no record that any of the surviving
Branch Davidians received treatment for CS poisoning. How can this
be explained?

When this writer asked Clive Doyle about the effects of CS on him,
Clive replied he ran and got a sweater after the attack started,
and the extra clothing protected him. Now in WTROE Clive tells us:
"We would move the opposite way to get away, as far away from
direct contact with it as possible, if you got it on your skin, an
exposed skin would just burn the heck out of you. Felt kind of
like battery acid of something like that. Very irritating, very
painful." (Script, pg. 35). But still, despite the length and
intensity of the CS attack, Clive needed no treatment.

Another Branch Davidian survivor reported that the concentration of
CS varied, depending on where you were in the building. If this is
true, one is again left asking why the mothers and children were
led to the concrete room, the cul-de-sac with no ventilation. Why
didn't they move from room to room too, depending on the
atmosphere, as this survivor did?

There are alternative explanations on why the survivors were not
treated for CS poisoning, including: (a) despite what we have been
told, CS is not poisonous and the survivors needed no treatment;
(b) CS was not used on April 19; (c) the CS-poisoned Branch
Davidians needed treatment, but were denied it, an act of cruelty
they have not yet reported; (d) the "survivors" were not at the
Mt. Carmel Center during the CS attack as they claim, and have been
coerced by some means to help the government with its "negligence"
cover story.

Other Evidence on Deaths of Mothers and Children Ignored

The makers of WTROE were aware of evidence concerning the deaths of
the mothers and children as the video was being researched and
produced. I know this because in the fall of 1996, director of
research McNulty called me to ask for assistance. During several
conversations, McNulty admitted he had visited the Museum and was
aware of its contents.

The Museum contains evidence that:

1. Some corpses found in the concrete room were so decomposed that
the connective tissue had withered, indicating a date of death well
prior to April 19, 1993. In addition, the decomposition states of
the bodies generally varied widely--some were severely decomposed,
some only moderately decomposed, indicating the victims died at
different times.

2. Many of those Dr. Peerwani said died of suffocation and blunt
force trauma in the (non-existent) structural collapse of the
concrete room were found without heads. The autopsies do not
question this phenomenon, even though it is evident structural
debris would hold a crushed head securely under its weight.

3. Many bodies were mutilated--heads without trunks, trunks
without arms, etc. The causes of death on Dr. Peerwani's autopsies
do not adequately address this phenomenon as other than incidental.
One autopsy on a headless corpse states: "Head injury cannot be
ruled out," and then assigns the cause of death to smoke inhalation
(Mt. Carmel Doe 32, allegedly John McBean.)

4. Eleven Davidian bodies found in the concrete room were
compacted together in an agglutinated mass. Dr. Peerwani's
autopsies do not address this phenomenon.

5. There is other compelling evidence that the mother and children
died under other circumstances and from other causes than those
given on the autopsy reports. The evidence indicates the bodies
were laundered to disguise the causes and circumstances of death.
The evidence indicates the bodies of the mothers and children were
moved into the concrete room after death.

This evidence is fully available for download in the Museum's
download page. Because the evidence is found in publicly available
documents, WTROE need not have given any credit to the Museum for
its research. WTROE could have questioned Dr. Peerwani on these
anomalies, and perhaps called in other experts to comment.

Instead, WTROE let Dr. Peerwani off the hook. It chose to ignore
these matters. While ignoring these substantive issues, WTROE made
false and unsupported statements concerning cyanide poisoning (see
above). Surely the makers of WTROE are covering up for the
murderers.

Focus on Davidians' Belief System

The name "Waco: The Rules of Engagement" suggests the subject
of the video will be an accounting of the Davidians' struggle with
the armed forces that confronted them, but then spends much of
its time examining the Branch Davidian religion. While perhaps
the religion of the victims provides background, the details of
that religious belief system should surely be treated as no more
than a footnote, compared to the hard evidence of deliberate
murder which should get intense focus.

But not so with WTROE. Much time is devoted to exploring the
religion of the victims. The theme dominates the opening section
and is repeated throughout. This skewed emphasis results in a clear
message: the victims' beliefs were partially responsible for the
murderers' actions. The effect of this presentation is to soften
outrage over the murders. Let's illustrate why with a hypothetical
parallel:

A member of a minority orthodox Jewish sect believes it is sinful
to work on the Sabbath. Unfortunately, one Friday afternoon a
business appointment runs late. In his hurry to get home before
sundown, the victim does not walk his regular route home, but takes
a short cut through a neighborhood known to be controlled by gangs
that hate Jews. Indeed, gang members see this man, and surround
him. They taunt him about his religion, they physically torture
him and beat him. Neighbors in the surrounding tenement houses see
the incident, record it on their camcorders, and call the police
asking them to come immediately. The police never do show up, and
the neighbors watch in horror as the gang stomps the victim to
death, dismembers his body, and then pours gasoline on the remains
and burns them.

A documentary film company decides to make a film about the murder.
But the documentary ignores or misrepresents much of the solid
physical evidence and eyewitness accounts. Instead much of the
audience's attention is directed to the religious belief system of
the victim.

The documentary starts out by telling its audience that the victim
was a Jew, and that Jews have always believed they would be
persecuted. Passages from the Old Testament and other Jewish
religious documents are quoted to prove the point. Religious
scholars are interviewed, who say that this murder should be seen
in the context of victim's belief system. An accounting is given
of the general history of the Jews, and the specific history of the
sect. We see pictures of the sect founder and learn about the
history of internal power struggles. We learn that the victim
believed the Messiah was coming, and carried a walkie-talkie with
him to alert other sect members to His arrival. Other sect members
confirm that those, indeed, are their beliefs, and they, too, carry
walkie-talkies. A psychiatrist who never met the victim agrees to
be interviewed and tells the audience that the victim was not a
lunatic, he just took his religion seriously.

Then the documentary covers the victim's sex life, pointing out
that the victim would not have sexual relations or indeed even
touch his wife when she was menstruating. Film clips of a young
girl are presented, in which the girl, a member of the gang that
murdered the Jew, comes forward and says the victim had tried to
rape her. The girl gives graphic details, using the vernacular as
she describes her alleged assault.

Other sect members come forward and confirm that the victim had a
roving eye for women. The religious scholar reappears; he says the
victim's sexual proclivities are based on religious texts. He
again reminds us about the fatalistic attitude of the Jews that
belong to this sect. The scholar concludes the victim's life ended
the way the victim himself predicted, but grants this: Had the
victim not taken the short cut home, he might be alive today.

Can you imagine the howls of outrage if such a documentary were to
surface and be shown in public theaters? Yet this is how WTROE
treats the Branch Davidians. Read the script, but let's look at
some of the highlights now:

Religion scholar James D. Tabor of the University of North
Carolina, who is portrayed as "sympathetic" to the Davidians, sets
the tone as his words ring out during the opening credits:

"What is God intending to bring out of this situation? If we do
our part as His servants, the government does their part as whoever
they are in the plan of God . . . What is it that God plans to
bring out of it? That's the way they thought," Tabor tells us
(Script, pg. 2)

The same theme is echoed by Rep. Tom Lantos, who his portrayed as
"antagonistic" towards the Davidians: "What I am telling you is,
that the most plausible single explanation for this nightmare,
namely the apocalyptic vision of the criminally insane, charismatic
cult leader who was hell bent on bringing about his infernal
nightmare in flames and the extermination of the children, and the
women and other innocents is not an explanation that should be cast
aside."

Tabor talks about the FBI's use of psychological warfare tactics: "
. . . that lead to the Davidians thinking, perhaps this is the
final confrontation. Perhaps we are to die courageously like
martyrs. Perhaps we're not going to come out of this OK."
(Script, pg. 26)

Was David Koresh a messiah? ". . . all he is is a cheap thug who
interprets the Bible through the barrel of a gun, ATF agent David
Troy tells us (Script, pg. 3). "I think he was a messiah," says
Davidian Graeme Craddock (Script, pg 9).

Alan A. Stone, Harvard University, a psychiatrist who never met
David Koresh: "I think that Koresh was not a criminal psychopathic.
He had as a youngster spent months memorizing the Bible. And
particularly these passages about the seventh seal and that sort of
repetitive study, memorization, throwing yourself into that kind of
disciplined project is not what sociopaths do . . . " (Script,
pg. 6.)

Tabor again: ". . . And I kept saying, well, we don't know who
started the fire. But we do know that the FBI delivered to David
Koresh the Armageddon that he thought would someday come. But it
didn't have to be April 19, 1993. " (pg. 41).

Just as we would be howling over the hypothetical example of the
documentary on the murder of the Jew, so also should we be howling
at this deplorable treatment of the murders of the Branch
Davidians. After all, Branch Davidian beliefs are but a
detail--our secular law does not rest on Branch Davidian religious
beliefs. And it is our secular law that the murderers broke.

Davidian Beliefs Caused Death of Children

Most newspaper accounts cite the number of children who died in the
April 19 inferno as "twenty-four." WTROE features religious
scholar Tabor talking about twenty-four children, too:

"Now, how does that [i.e., their beliefs] translate into communal
living, even the sexual arrangements of the group?" he asks.
(Script, pg. 5.)

Tabor continues: ". . . this final figure [i.e., David Koresh] has
the obligation to beget twenty four children and he has multiple
wives. It's in prophecy, in other words. Might have been
convenient, but this is what they found." (Script, pg. 6).

"And these twenty-four children are to become the twenty-four
elders that are to rule the Earth . . . (Script, pg. 6).

Are the twenty-four child victims of April 19 the same twenty-four
children that Tabor is referring to? Because Tabor gives no
referent, it is easy to assume the "twenty-four" refers to the same
set of people.

Once again we see the function of the collage format. Premises and
conclusions are not clearly stated. Images and impressions are

presented on the screen as pieces of glass in a kaleidoscope. What

you see depends on your point of view. Tabor's open-ended
"twenty-four" children allusion has an important effect.

For members of the audience familiar only with the newspaper
accounts, the equation is easy. The twenty-four children found in
the concrete room were David Koresh's. The mothers were his wives.

Unless one is intimately familiar with the details, it "explains"
why so many children's bodies were in the concrete room. It blames
those deaths on the Davidian's beliefs--David would not let his
children leave--they were the "twenty-four" elders, so they died.
And it subhumanizes the massacre victims. The children, babies,
and mothers were a lower life form--concubines and offspring of a
maniac and pervert.

However, four of the children of Wayne and Sheila Martin are also
numbered among those whose bodies were found in the concrete room.
Those victims were: Anita Marie (18), Lisa Marie (13), Sheila Renee
(15), and Wayne (20). David Koresh first arrived at the Mt. Carmel
Center in 1981, so the Martin children are too old to be his Branch
Davidian offspring.

WTROE relies heavily on the "Davidian home video" taken during the
siege by the Davidians at the request of the FBI (Script, pg 3).
This video has circulated among Waco buffs for years, and certain
excerpts are shown throughout the film. In it, Steve Schneider
interviews various Davidians, including the five Martinez children.
Audrey (13 years old) and Abigail (11 years old) say their
grandmother brought them to Mt. Carmel when they were 7 and 5 years
old. Then we meet Joseph (8 years old), Isaiah (4 years old) and
Crystal (3 years old). David Koresh talks with them and calls them
his "adopted" children.

The dates the Martinez children arrived and the racial contrast
with Koresh indicate clearly that the Martinez children were not
Koresh's biological offspring. But the audience does not learn
about this--no interviews with the Martinez children are included
in WTROE. Yet the bodies of all five were found in the concrete
room. The five Martinez children are presumably counted among
Tabor's "twenty-four elders," and the audience is none the wiser.

Likewise the Davidian home video shows an interview with Rachael
Sylvia (13 years old). She says she first came to Mt. Carmel when
she was 5 years old. Her mother, Lorraine Sylvia, says she
(Lorraine) first met David Koresh "eight years ago." Simple
arithmetic shows that Rachael was not David Koresh's offspring, yet
her body was found in the concrete room.

Thirty-two year old John McBean, whose body was also found in the
concrete room, could not be David Koresh's offspring or wife,
either.

Nor does Tabor's implication (twenty-four dead children =
twenty-four offspring of David Koresh) comport with the physical
evidence found in the concrete room. It does not indicate that
"twenty-four" were alive on April 19 and went there to seek shelter
from the CS. The evidence indicates the mothers and children died
at different times, under different circumstances, and that the
bodies were brought to the concrete room after death.

Would it be too cynical to ask aloud what Biblical references
Mr. Tabor would come up with had the number of children found in
the concrete room been closer to twelve? Perhaps we would be
treated to references to the twelve Apostles . . .

One wonders: If the makers of WTROE were doing a documentary about
the Oklahoma City bombing, would they spend the audience's time on
exploring the parental lineage of those victims, too?

Part 3 to follow.

===

===
Carol A. Valentine
President, Public Action, Inc.

Have you seen the Waco Holocaust Electronic Museum?
See what they did to the mothers and children--

http://www.Public-Action.com/SkyWriter/WacoMuseum

===

Note to readers: Go to Museum Burial Gallery.
Download the complete script of hoax documentary "Waco: The Rules of
Engagement."
Download the analysis and review. Then see the "documentary."
You will have an object lesson on disinformation. It is a technique
that can be understood.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

[Guru165871]

In article <891626701$21...@black-helicopter.psychetect.com>,
red.k...@mailexcite.com writes:

>No one ever admitted that there were any automatic weapons aboard the
>helicopters.
>1) There were not
>2) There were handguns with the agents aboard, but
>3) The doors of the helicopters were never opened while in filght.

One thing that didn't make it into the movie, but was in Dick Reavis'
book, was the fact that the bullets that killed Peter Gent came down
at him from an upward source. Did ATF have any 150' tall agents on
the scene shooting down at him, by any chance?

>> c) The ATF lied about what they were conducting their raid for. They got
>the
>> warrant claiming that the BD's had illegal full auto rifles in their
>posession,
>> but this was NEVER proven in court or before Congress, in fact the
>government
>> refused to give the weapons over for outside inspection untill well after
>the
>> feds could have altered them themselves.
>
>Then no chain of evidence is, or can be, good enough.

Only when the feds won't allow independant laboratory inspection
of the evidence.

>It must have been proven in court to support the charges against Fatta.

The jury may have been naive enough not to be disturbed by the lack
of independant review of the sear pins. Oh well, tough titty for the
defense. But it still reeks of tampering on FBI's part that they're so
possessive and secretive of their "evidence." They'll hold it up across
the room from you and tell you it's "illegally modified," and expect you
to take their word for it.

>Even if it weren't, what about Ron Cole's admission on this group that the
>BDs had automatic weapons that they had converted themselves?

Objection, your honor: Hearsay. ;-)

>The door, if it showed what I beleive whoud be found, i.e. bullet holes going
>both ways, would proove what?

DeGuerin testified to the Committee that he saw only inward-bound
bullet holes. That combined with the fact the door was MISSING
after the fire is headily suspicious.

>> b) The ATF was video taping the initial assault, and most of the
>videotape
>> that could have provided key evidence of the assault, and who started the
>gun
>> fire, have been mysteriously 'blanked'. Again, it doesnt take a rocket
>> scientist to figure this one out either.
>
>Not blanked. Ran out. Since video tapes are of standard lengths, that they
>all "blanked" at about the same time is no great mystery.

Let me get this straight in my mind, and correct me if I'm reading you
wrong: they start taping the ATF's activities that morning, all the
important stuff like donning equipment and playing Batman in front
of the mirror for a few hours, all the macho jocularity, the hut-hut-hut
of loading into the cattle trailers, etc., and SUDDENLY, when the
real action was about to go down at the Ranch, they run out of
tape? Is this what you're saying?

>> e) The individual after action reports of the ATF agents of the initial
>> raid were aborted. The officials explained that this could be evidence
>used
>to
>> clear the BD's later. This is a tacit admission of who was at fault for the
>> bloody massacre.
>
>At the request of the Justice Department. ATF is still hot about it. My
>father intends to complete the shooting review for the book he and I are
>going to start after he retires.

Why do you think it was the Injustice Department said there might
be "Brady Actions" in the shooting reviews if they submitted them?

>> 3) The initial ATF raid was mismanaged, poorly organized, and incompetently
>> executed from the start.
>
>I'll grant extreme errors of judgement in the decision to go ahead aftert
>surprise had been lost.

Essentially, the families of the four dead agents have that particular
tactical leader to thank for their loss. They should "show their
appreciation" some day. ;-)

BTW, you have any news on Rodriguez' lawsuit?

>>It was plainly a PR scheme from the word go, and even
>> losing the element of surprise 30MINUTES beforehand did not persuade them
>>to call off their wonderful show. Yes, it truly was "showtime" for the ATF,
>>and clearly they showed that the ATF should be immediately disbanded before
>>they massacre some other innocent community of Americans.
>
>I'll support a dissolution of ATF.

Any agency that goes to blows with FBI can't be all bad in my book. ;-)

>> it can persuade anyone with an open mind. If you have any concern about the
>> abuse of state power, see this movie.
>
>Then the movie served the purpose for which it was tailored.
>
>And it was tailored.

The documentary showed both sides of the story, did it not? Were
those Schmuck Schumer tirades on there a mirage or something?
There was plenty of long minutes of FBI shills gobbing the Party
Line. Both sides of the issue were examined. Just because the
evidence didn't support the government-supremacist interperetation
of the incident doesn't necessarily mean the movie was "tailoring"
it away. What WAS there to support the government-supremacist
position, which you think the movie might have left out?

[RGlenCheek]

Mike,
Much of the objections you make fall into the "It didnt go far enough"
category. I must point out that most of the public is not willing to go even as
far as this movie has, much less to the idea that the Federal Bureau of
Immolation had deliberately murdered the BDs with beheadings and mutilations
conducted on the ground up front. I have a hard time imagining when the FBI
would have done this, given the fact that the building was on fire all over the
place. But I wont subject the main theme to neglect by quibbling over just how
bad fed conduct was at Waco. The significant points, from my POV, is that the
FBI did lie, did do things that directly led to the BD's deaths, and attempted
to cover up their malfeance and that of the ATF's by destroying and obstructing
evidence and all parrallell investigations. That is enough, and that is very
believable by many.

M:1. WTROE makes its gravest charge against the FBI--that adult

Davidians were machine-gunned as they ran from the burning
Mt. Carmel Center on April 19, 1993--on a single piece of contested
evidence. That evidence is the Forward-Looking Infra Red (FLIR)
film taken by government forces on April 19, 1993.

RGC: I thought the gravest charge was their belief that the FBI killed a bunch
of children with CS gas and fire.

2. WTROE does not question the veracity of this evidence, even
though the source is the FBI, the very agency WTROE is accusing of
murder.

RGC: Though that is grounds for distrust, most evidence can be verified, even
without government cooperation.

3. WTROE argues that the Davidian mothers and children were not
deliberately murdered and that their deaths were the unintended
result of the CS attack and fire.
In forwarding this argument, WTROE accepts without question other
highly suspect "evidence" from the FBI, apparently oblivious to the
FBI's track record of destroying, manufacturing, and doctoring
evidence.

RGC: The FLIR tapes were obtained through the FOIA, I believe. And they probaly
thought few would no how to analyze them in the general public anyway. The
tapes can be authenticated anyway.

4. WTROE ignores a wealth of convincing evidence from a number of
sources which confirms the Davidian mothers and children were
deliberately murdered.

RGC: This is quibbling. The use of a chemical weapon, banned by international
law for use in warfare, on a group of women and children, toddlers and infants
is barbaric enough to damn the FB of Immolation in the view of most people.

5. WTROE fabricates a "they died of cyanide poisoning" story to
explain the deaths of the children.

RGC: It said there was some evidence in some of them, not all of them. It
implies that most were probably dead by then. As to your later denials that CS
was used, that is absurd. And it fits a pattern used on the SLA, Gordon Khal,
Robert Matthews, and the Move group in Philadelphia.

6. WTROE makes blatantly false statements about the Davidian
Autopsy Reports and "official" causes of death.

RGC: Again, more quibbles. The "official" findings were, as admitted by you,
conducted by an incompetent, while much of his evidence was prevented from him.

7. WTROE dilutes outrage over Waco by showcasing the most
repellent accusation against the Davidians.

RGC: The were not showcased, IMO; instead they were dealt with in an effective
manner at the outset of the film.

8. WTROE dilutes outrage over Waco by suggesting the atrocity was,
in part, a product of the Davidians' belief system.

RGC: To a degree it was. The BD's could have walked out in front of the cameras
with their hand up at almost anytime.

9. WTROE reasserts the obviously false accounts of April 19
events, as told by some surviving Davidians -- that the majority of
Davidians were alive during the CS attack and fire and died as a
result of those events. The message is: "They were alive on April 19,
they really were . . . " (Except for those who got mowed down by FBI
machine gun fire, see 1 and 2, above).

RGC: This is quibbling. It is still clear the FBI's actions led to the deaths
of those people. Why are you slamming the best peice of PR the Waco crowd has
had over such trivia?

10. WTROE protects the US military by casting Waco as a "law
enforcement" event. This, despite overwhelming and obvious evidence
that that it was a military operation from the beginning to the
end.

RGC: The personell who carried out the attacks were unmistakenly Federal agents
and not military personell.

M: WTROE is advertised as a film. It is not. It is a video, copied

onto 16/35 mm film for theater showings. That's right, it is just
a glorified video.

RGC: So was the Rodney King tape.

RGC: Again, Mike, this quibbling over the details detracts from the basic
message of malfeance by the ATF and FBI. You do the wrong people a service by
attacking the intentions and veracity of those on your side for the sake of
quibbles and pointless detail.

RGlenCheek

[red.k...@mailexcite.com]

In article <891695101$24...@black-helicopter.psychetect.com>,

ar...@surfari.net wrote:
>
>
> red.knight of the red.lands wroteth he:.

> > It must have been proven in court to support the charges against Fatta.
>

> It wasn't proven in court. The jury was satified that there were automatic
> weapons, but there was nothing, NOTHING to connect Paul Fatta to any
> modifications in the inventory and isn't to this day.
>

If the satisfaction of the jury in court where they are instructed that to be
satisfied there must be proof beyond a reasonable doubt, isn't the best, only
and final arbiter (exept in the case of appeal where reversable error is
present), then what is?

> You know, Red Knight, as well as I do, that the FBI had a major hard on to
> get Paul Fatta since the day he started talking to the media. They wanted
> him shut up and shut up fast. He was looking just a little too coherent and
> credible in the interviews with Katy Couric and Pravda West (LA Times). The
> FBI was out for Paul Fatta's blood and, with their famous FBI determination
> and infamous FBI sleight of hand, they got it.
>

No. I don't know that.

Tell me more.

These interviews took place before the trial and after the arrest?

> > There was evidence [of a meth lab].
>
> What evidence?
>

Overhead infrared photos that indicated a heat signature that accoriding to
the Natiola Guard analyst could be consistent with a meth lab.
Knowledge that there had been a meth lab on the premises before.
Statements to Agent Rodriguez by Koresh that Mt. Carmel would be an ideal site
for a meth lab.

Before you tell me that this doesn't constitute probable cause, (and I'd
agree) keep in mind that request for miltary assistance in connection with a
"drug nexus" is not an application for a search warrant. All that is required
is "evidence." No standard is applied by statute. Could be anything from
"the great weight and preponderance" to "the merest scintilla."

The reason that there is no mention of any of the drug nexus info in the
affidavit for search warrant is that the two processes are separate and
distinct.

> > At the request of the Justice Department. ATF is still hot about it. My
> > father intends to complete the shooting review for the book he and I are
> > going to start after he retires.
>

> Good for him. You raised him right, Sonny. Hope other agents follow suit,
> but I expect that you'll be villified by the FBI if you threaten their
> credibility in any small way. Careful, though, or search and rescue will be
> scraping you off a tree at Tahoe :) (And you didn't think you could ski)
>

Other agents are more than happy to cooperate. Like I said; there aren't any
of them that are happy that it was called off. Their view: A clean shooting
review was the only thing that would clear their names for certain. That it
was called of at all, let alone for the reason given, only serves as a
provocation of suspicion. My POV (and my father's, I suspect) is that the DoJ
called it off deliberately to discredit ATF and DepTreas. Insult to injury,
is that it didn't have to be called off. ATF's former Deputy Director
Hartnett (and the originator of the lies that were told by ATF personnel
following the raid until confronted by angry agents), to whom DoJ directed the
request, could have denied it and continued the review.

> > I'll grant extreme errors of judgement in the decision to go ahead after
> > surprise had been lost.
>
> Errors. You've got a lot more self-control than I would. Your dad faced
the
> reality of the situation. How does he feel about Sarabyn and
> "Get-Me-the-Hell-Outta-Here!" Chojnacki (and their superiors that probably
> ordered them to go on with the raid, regardless of the loss of surprise)?
>

He has little bad to say about them. They made the wrong call in a judgement
situation. On that point he has no ill will toward them. Where he is
displeased with them is on regard to their willingness to allow ex-DepDir
Harnett to lie on national television. I suppose it covered their asses too.

> > I'll support a dissolution of ATF.
>

> I'd wonder what Libertarian in their right mind wouldn't. FBI folks really
> need to find honest employment, too.
>

I am NOT a Libertarian. ("l"ibertarian, however could be another matter)

And, probably no one would be too hot on the idea who really don't like the
ATF. Have you considered either of the two most probable results of such a
move? Hint: The laws enforced by ATF would still be on the books and would
have to be enforced by someone.

> ATF leadership was mendacious and criminally negligent, but the FBI was
> absolutely insidious in their intentional homicidal and subsequent
cover-ups.
> Almost like the difference between a drunk driver who kills a carload of six
> and a seasoned hitman who calmly snuffs 76 'targets.'
>

As I've said many times before. I have no inside sources of information on
the FBIs activities at Mt. Carmel. I cannnot and will not defnd their
actions.

[red.k...@mailexcite.com]

In article <891870607$13...@black-helicopter.psychetect.com>,

guru1...@aol.com (Guru165871) wrote:
>
>
> In article <891626701$21...@black-helicopter.psychetect.com>,
> red.k...@mailexcite.com writes:
>
> >No one ever admitted that there were any automatic weapons aboard the
> >helicopters.
> >1) There were not
> >2) There were handguns with the agents aboard, but
> >3) The doors of the helicopters were never opened while in filght.
>
> One thing that didn't make it into the movie, but was in Dick Reavis'
> book, was the fact that the bullets that killed Peter Gent came down
> at him from an upward source. Did ATF have any 150' tall agents on
> the scene shooting down at him, by any chance?
>

If Peter Gent was in a standing position when he was shot, that is. Shooting
upward at an individual in an elevated point who is in a prone position can
give the same balistic result as if they were shot from above while standing.
I haven't seen the autopsy info on Gent. I suppose it's on the Waco Museum
site? I'll check.

> >> c) The ATF lied about what they were conducting their raid for. They
got
> >the
> >> warrant claiming that the BD's had illegal full auto rifles in their
> >posession,
> >> but this was NEVER proven in court or before Congress, in fact the
> >government
> >> refused to give the weapons over for outside inspection untill well after
> >the
> >> feds could have altered them themselves.
> >
> >Then no chain of evidence is, or can be, good enough.
>
> Only when the feds won't allow independant laboratory inspection
> of the evidence.
>

It was never disallowed.

The Texas Rangers said that the weapons could be inspected on their site. The
offer was declined (I have a letter to this effect form the Texas Rangers.)

The weapons could be removed for analysis at a remote location now that
litigation is no longer pending. Call Congress and NRA and demand it now.

> >It must have been proven in court to support the charges against Fatta.
>
> The jury may have been naive enough not to be disturbed by the lack
> of independant review of the sear pins. Oh well, tough titty for the
> defense. But it still reeks of tampering on FBI's part that they're so
> possessive and secretive of their "evidence." They'll hold it up across
> the room from you and tell you it's "illegally modified," and expect you
> to take their word for it.
>

So now there can be no sufficient chain of evidence and no sufficient jury
review, either?

> >Even if it weren't, what about Ron Cole's admission on this group that the
> >BDs had automatic weapons that they had converted themselves?
>
> Objection, your honor: Hearsay. ;-)
>

Hearsay? To evidence seen by the individual offering testimony? The post by
Mr. Cole is still in the DejaNews archive.

> >The door, if it showed what I beleive whoud be found, i.e. bullet holes
going
> >both ways, would proove what?
>
> DeGuerin testified to the Committee that he saw only inward-bound
> bullet holes. That combined with the fact the door was MISSING
> after the fire is headily suspicious.
>

And an attorney would never make a "mistatement" in the interest of his
client.

> >> b) The ATF was video taping the initial assault, and most of the
> >videotape
> >> that could have provided key evidence of the assault, and who started the
> >gun
> >> fire, have been mysteriously 'blanked'. Again, it doesnt take a rocket
> >> scientist to figure this one out either.
> >
> >Not blanked. Ran out. Since video tapes are of standard lengths, that
they
> >all "blanked" at about the same time is no great mystery.
>

More later. Gotta go to class.

[red.k...@mailexcite.com]

In article <891870607$13...@black-helicopter.psychetect.com>,
guru1...@aol.com (Guru165871) wrote:
>
>

> In article <891626701$21...@black-helicopter.psychetect.com>,
> red.k...@mailexcite.com writes:
>

> >> e) The individual after action reports of the ATF agents of the
initial
> >> raid were aborted. The officials explained that this could be evidence
> >used
> >to
> >> clear the BD's later. This is a tacit admission of who was at fault for
the
> >> bloody massacre.
> >
> >At the request of the Justice Department. ATF is still hot about it. My
> >father intends to complete the shooting review for the book he and I are
> >going to start after he retires.
>
> Why do you think it was the Injustice Department said there might
> be "Brady Actions" in the shooting reviews if they submitted them?
>

To justify not completing the review and so leave the actions of the ATF in an
indeterminate state and make their job of competing for funding easier. Just
my opinion, but not unique to me.

> >> 3) The initial ATF raid was mismanaged, poorly organized, and
incompetently
> >> executed from the start.
> >
> >I'll grant extreme errors of judgement in the decision to go ahead aftert
> >surprise had been lost.
>
> Essentially, the families of the four dead agents have that particular
> tactical leader to thank for their loss. They should "show their
> appreciation" some day. ;-)
>

To my knowledge, the families see the actions of the leadership on the ground
in essentially the same way my dad does. Decision to go = bad judgment. If
there are hard feelings is it concerning the statements made later by them and
by former DepDir Hartnett.

> BTW, you have any news on Rodriguez' lawsuit?
>

No. I don't. I can ask.

> >>It was plainly a PR scheme from the word go, and even
> >> losing the element of surprise 30MINUTES beforehand did not persuade them
> >>to call off their wonderful show. Yes, it truly was "showtime" for the
ATF,
> >>and clearly they showed that the ATF should be immediately disbanded
before
> >>they massacre some other innocent community of Americans.
> >
> >I'll support a dissolution of ATF.
>
> Any agency that goes to blows with FBI can't be all bad in my book. ;-)
>

How about a Treasury agency that is equal to the FBI by combining IRS(CID),
ATF, Customs, USSS? Better check on FBI power, if you ask me. And more
efficent use of money, personnel and materiel, not to mention more efficient
law enforcement.

> >> it can persuade anyone with an open mind. If you have any concern about
the
> >> abuse of state power, see this movie.
> >
> >Then the movie served the purpose for which it was tailored.
> >
> >And it was tailored.
>
> The documentary showed both sides of the story, did it not? Were
> those Schmuck Schumer tirades on there a mirage or something?

Schumer is on my side? I might as well shoot myself.

> There was plenty of long minutes of FBI shills gobbing the Party
> Line. Both sides of the issue were examined.

So long as the long minutes could be easily dismissed with contrary
information. No, I don't see it as balanced. The information presented was
highly selective.

Just because the
> evidence didn't support the government-supremacist interperetation
> of the incident doesn't necessarily mean the movie was "tailoring"
> it away. What WAS there to support the government-supremacist
> position, which you think the movie might have left out?
>

Pertinent testimony before the Congress from other agnets whose testimony
could not be so easily countered. You should hear ALL of Agent Rodriguez'
testimony, just to name one, rather than just the snips that are presented.

No mention of the DEA agents that were present to handle the meth lab if it
were found.

[Guru165871]

In article <891888600$23...@black-helicopter.psychetect.com>,
red.k...@mailexcite.com writes:

>> Why do you think it was the Injustice Department said there might
>> be "Brady Actions" in the shooting reviews if they submitted them?
>
>To justify not completing the review and so leave the actions of the ATF in
>an indeterminate state and make their job of competing for funding easier.
Just
>my opinion, but not unique to me.

Sounds plausible, at least to me.

>> Essentially, the families of the four dead agents have that particular
>> tactical leader to thank for their loss. They should "show their
>> appreciation" some day. ;-)
>
>To my knowledge, the families see the actions of the leadership on the ground
>in essentially the same way my dad does. Decision to go = bad judgment. If
>there are hard feelings is it concerning the statements made later by them
>and by former DepDir Hartnett.

Adds insult to injury, or in this case, death.

>> BTW, you have any news on Rodriguez' lawsuit?
>
>No. I don't. I can ask.

For those out in our studio audience, Rodriguez is the guy who
said he told the SAC to call off the raid because the BDs knew
they were coming. The SAC blamed Rodriguez for the whole
debacle and claimed he was lying about having warned him. It
hurt Rodriguez' career, to say the least, and he filed a lawsuit.

>> Any agency that goes to blows with FBI can't be all bad in my book. ;-)
>
>How about a Treasury agency that is equal to the FBI by combining IRS(CID),
>ATF, Customs, USSS? Better check on FBI power, if you ask me. And more
>efficent use of money, personnel and materiel, not to mention more efficient
>law enforcement.

Well, it'd be even better to fragment the hell out of FBI instead, make it
LESS powerful. ;-)

>> The documentary showed both sides of the story, did it not? Were
>> those Schmuck Schumer tirades on there a mirage or something?
>
>Schumer is on my side? I might as well shoot myself.

ROFLMAO, I may have misspoke... well, let's just say he made a
very ardent case for the murderous JBTs and against the children
who died.

>> There was plenty of long minutes of FBI shills gobbing the Party
>> Line. Both sides of the issue were examined.
>
>So long as the long minutes could be easily dismissed with contrary
>information. No, I don't see it as balanced. The information presented was
>highly selective.

What was left out that shouldn't have been?

>>Just because the
>> evidence didn't support the government-supremacist interperetation
>> of the incident doesn't necessarily mean the movie was "tailoring"
>> it away. What WAS there to support the government-supremacist
>> position, which you think the movie might have left out?
>
>Pertinent testimony before the Congress from other agnets whose testimony
>could not be so easily countered. You should hear ALL of Agent Rodriguez'
>testimony, just to name one, rather than just the snips that are presented.

What specifically should have been addressed more in depth?

>No mention of the DEA agents that were present to handle the meth lab if it
>were found.

Okay, there's one. But perhaps they didn't see the mere presence of
agents for a "just in case" scenario as being particularly compelling for
the gov't-supremacist side?

"Empire is no more
And the Lion and the Wolf shall cease." --William Blake, _Song of Liberty_

[Guru165871]

In article <891874218$16...@black-helicopter.psychetect.com>,
red.k...@mailexcite.com writes:

>> > There was evidence [of a meth lab].
>>
>> What evidence?
>
>Overhead infrared photos that indicated a heat signature that accoriding to
>the Natiola Guard analyst could be consistent with a meth lab.
>Knowledge that there had been a meth lab on the premises before.
>Statements to Agent Rodriguez by Koresh that Mt. Carmel would be an ideal
>site for a meth lab.
>
>Before you tell me that this doesn't constitute probable cause, (and I'd
>agree) keep in mind that request for miltary assistance in connection with a
>"drug nexus" is not an application for a search warrant. All that is
>required is "evidence." No standard is applied by statute. Could be anything
from
>"the great weight and preponderance" to "the merest scintilla."
>The reason that there is no mention of any of the drug nexus info in the
>affidavit for search warrant is that the two processes are separate and
>distinct.

This is why I've always said the so-called "Posse Comitatus" statute is
a ribald JOKE. You want military law enforcement? Just show a
"merest scintilla" of so-called "evidence" of a "drug nexus."

>> Errors. You've got a lot more self-control than I would. Your dad faced
>>the reality of the situation. How does he feel about Sarabyn and
>> "Get-Me-the-Hell-Outta-Here!" Chojnacki (and their superiors that probably
>> ordered them to go on with the raid, regardless of the loss of surprise)?
>
>He has little bad to say about them. They made the wrong call in a judgement
>situation. On that point he has no ill will toward them. Where he is
>displeased with them is on regard to their willingness to allow ex-DepDir
>Harnett to lie on national television. I suppose it covered their asses too.

The lying was indeed probably the worst thing they did, but I think the
reckless endangerment of the agents "ain't chopped livah." That should
be good for at least a punch in the nose, like at the end of a very bad
action movie. ;-)

>And, probably no one would be too hot on the idea who really don't like the
>ATF. Have you considered either of the two most probable results of such a
>move? Hint: The laws enforced by ATF would still be on the books and would
>have to be enforced by someone.

Exactly. Then instead of two Gestapos that work at cross-purposes and
trip each other up and almost act as an accidental system of checks and
balances with each other, you'd have one Almighty Monolith of baby-
burning jack-booted thuggery.

>As I've said many times before. I have no inside sources of information on
>the FBIs activities at Mt. Carmel. I cannnot and will not defnd their
>actions.

Very wise move. ;-)

[Guru165871]

In article <891882300$21...@black-helicopter.psychetect.com>,
red.k...@mailexcite.com writes:

>> One thing that didn't make it into the movie, but was in Dick Reavis'
>> book, was the fact that the bullets that killed Peter Gent came down
>> at him from an upward source. Did ATF have any 150' tall agents on
>> the scene shooting down at him, by any chance?
>
>If Peter Gent was in a standing position when he was shot, that is. Shooting
>upward at an individual in an elevated point who is in a prone position can
>give the same balistic result as if they were shot from above while standing.
> I haven't seen the autopsy info on Gent. I suppose it's on the Waco Museum
>site? I'll check.

The video shot by the news crew shows him climbing, then briefly standing,
then falling and dropping his rifle. I would ordinarily support the
possibility
of him being prone, but video evidence directly contradicts this.

All in all, though, I wouldn't necessarily say it was much of an atrocity for
some ATF agents in a helicopter to have shot at an individual brandishing
a rifle at them. It DOES prove them LIARS, but then, that's also proven
in many other areas of the case as well.

>> >Then no chain of evidence is, or can be, good enough.
>>
>> Only when the feds won't allow independant laboratory inspection
>> of the evidence.
>
>It was never disallowed.
>
>The Texas Rangers said that the weapons could be inspected on their site.
>The offer was declined (I have a letter to this effect form the Texas
Rangers.)
>The weapons could be removed for analysis at a remote location now that
>litigation is no longer pending. Call Congress and NRA and demand it now.

It's when a trial IS pending that the evidence DOES need to be examined
by an independant expert. This is basic rule of law they're trampling on
here.

>> The jury may have been naive enough not to be disturbed by the lack
>> of independant review of the sear pins. Oh well, tough titty for the
>> defense. But it still reeks of tampering on FBI's part that they're so
>> possessive and secretive of their "evidence." They'll hold it up across
>> the room from you and tell you it's "illegally modified," and expect you
>> to take their word for it.
>
>So now there can be no sufficient chain of evidence and no sufficient jury
>review, either?

More to the point: it doesn't TAKE a sufficient chain of evidence to
bamboozle a jury into a guilty verdict--that is, unless the defendant
can afford Flea Bailey and Johnny Cochran, et. al.

>> >Even if it weren't, what about Ron Cole's admission on this group that the
>> >BDs had automatic weapons that they had converted themselves?
>>
>> Objection, your honor: Hearsay. ;-)
>
>Hearsay? To evidence seen by the individual offering testimony? The post by
>Mr. Cole is still in the DejaNews archive.

Mr. Cole was AT Mount Carmel?

>> DeGuerin testified to the Committee that he saw only inward-bound
>> bullet holes. That combined with the fact the door was MISSING
>> after the fire is headily suspicious.
>
>And an attorney would never make a "mistatement" in the interest of his
>client.

Which lends credibility to his testimony of what he saw. It's the
government-supremacists who are saying he's lying, yet it's also
the government itself which ensured evidence that might have
proved him wrong "disappeared."

[red.k...@mailexcite.com]

Most interesting the research I've just been doing....

Can anyone tell me about specific statements that W:ROE makes about Peter
Gent?

I think I remember something but, I'm not sure. Something about the manner in
which he was shot.

[Guru165871]

In article <891903001$33...@black-helicopter.psychetect.com>,
red.k...@mailexcite.com writes:

>Most interesting the research I've just been doing....
>
>Can anyone tell me about specific statements that W:ROE makes about Peter
>Gent?
>
>I think I remember something but, I'm not sure. Something about the manner
>in which he was shot.

The footage of him GETTING shot, as far as I remember, with some
narration of the event.

[red.k...@mailexcite.com]

In article <891900309$31...@black-helicopter.psychetect.com>,

guru1...@aol.com (Guru165871) wrote:
>
>
> In article <891874218$16...@black-helicopter.psychetect.com>,
> red.k...@mailexcite.com writes:
>

> >> > There was evidence [of a meth lab].
> >>
> >> What evidence?
> >
> >Overhead infrared photos that indicated a heat signature that accoriding to
> >the Natiola Guard analyst could be consistent with a meth lab.
> >Knowledge that there had been a meth lab on the premises before.
> >Statements to Agent Rodriguez by Koresh that Mt. Carmel would be an ideal
> >site for a meth lab.
> >
> >Before you tell me that this doesn't constitute probable cause, (and I'd
> >agree) keep in mind that request for miltary assistance in connection with a
> >"drug nexus" is not an application for a search warrant. All that is
> >required is "evidence." No standard is applied by statute. Could be anything
> from
> >"the great weight and preponderance" to "the merest scintilla."
> >The reason that there is no mention of any of the drug nexus info in the
> >affidavit for search warrant is that the two processes are separate and
> >distinct.
>

> This is why I've always said the so-called "Posse Comitatus" statute is
> a ribald JOKE. You want military law enforcement? Just show a
> "merest scintilla" of so-called "evidence" of a "drug nexus."
>

But even without the "drug nexus" the same training and support could have
been obtained, without violataing Posse Comitatus. PC does not prohibit
training. It does not cover the National Guard (or the Navy or the Marine
Corps, for that matter.)

> >> Errors. You've got a lot more self-control than I would. Your dad faced
> >>the reality of the situation. How does he feel about Sarabyn and
> >> "Get-Me-the-Hell-Outta-Here!" Chojnacki (and their superiors that probably
> >> ordered them to go on with the raid, regardless of the loss of surprise)?
> >
> >He has little bad to say about them. They made the wrong call in a judgement
> >situation. On that point he has no ill will toward them. Where he is
> >displeased with them is on regard to their willingness to allow ex-DepDir
> >Harnett to lie on national television. I suppose it covered their asses too.
>

> The lying was indeed probably the worst thing they did, but I think the
> reckless endangerment of the agents "ain't chopped livah." That should
> be good for at least a punch in the nose, like at the end of a very bad
> action movie. ;-)
>

That's waht hartnett was faced with when a group of angry agents who had
participated in the raid (who should have been a priority for being relieved)
had been left on the perimiter for 48 hours straight, got back and found out
about his public statements. I beleive the implicit choice was to retract
the statements or find himself in some equivalent of a dark alley with them
for a protracted period of time.

When we saw Hartnett (my brother and I) about the time my dad came back in
from the perimiter, we considered the punch in the nose. Probably we made
the right choice. Not sure sometimes.

> >And, probably no one would be too hot on the idea who really don't like the
> >ATF. Have you considered either of the two most probable results of such a
> >move? Hint: The laws enforced by ATF would still be on the books and would
> >have to be enforced by someone.
>

> Exactly. Then instead of two Gestapos that work at cross-purposes and
> trip each other up and almost act as an accidental system of checks and
> balances with each other, you'd have one Almighty Monolith of baby-
> burning jack-booted thuggery.
>

I think you underestimate the tensions that exist between Justice and
Treasury.

> >As I've said many times before. I have no inside sources of information on
> >the FBIs activities at Mt. Carmel. I cannnot and will not defnd their
> >actions.
>

> Very wise move. ;-)
>

I hope.

[red.k...@mailexcite.com]

In article <891900302$31...@black-helicopter.psychetect.com>,
guru1...@aol.com (Guru165871) wrote:
>
>
> In article <891888600$23...@black-helicopter.psychetect.com>,
> red.k...@mailexcite.com writes:
>

> >> BTW, you have any news on Rodriguez' lawsuit?
> >
> >No. I don't. I can ask.
>
> For those out in our studio audience, Rodriguez is the guy who
> said he told the SAC to call off the raid because the BDs knew
> they were coming. The SAC blamed Rodriguez for the whole
> debacle and claimed he was lying about having warned him. It
> hurt Rodriguez' career, to say the least, and he filed a lawsuit.
>

Essentially correct.

Mind if I quibble?

Rodriguez (one of my dad's former trainees) didn't "tell" the SAC to call off
the raid. That'd be like an E-6 selling the Colonel to call off the attack.

He reported what he knew and expected a reaction that was not forthcoming.

In this case the E-6 had better judgment than the Colonel.

Technically, Rodriguez didn't tell the SAC anything. Chojnacki had already
left the area. Rodriguez spoke to Cavanaugh, who relayed the infor to
Sarabyn and Chojnacki.

> >> Any agency that goes to blows with FBI can't be all bad in my book. ;-)
> >
> >How about a Treasury agency that is equal to the FBI by combining IRS(CID),
> >ATF, Customs, USSS? Better check on FBI power, if you ask me. And more
> >efficent use of money, personnel and materiel, not to mention more efficient
> >law enforcement.
>
> Well, it'd be even better to fragment the hell out of FBI instead, make it
> LESS powerful. ;-)
>

And we can spend more money on duplicated support services. I don't like it.

Not to mention that 3 out of every 4 cases the FBI refers for prosecution is
dropped by the AUSA as "legaly insufficient." Compare that with ATF's 1 in 3
or DEA's 1 in 7. We already aren't getting our money's worth form FBI. Why
make it worse.

(Stats: See-- http://www.trac.syr.edu )

> >> The documentary showed both sides of the story, did it not? Were
> >> those Schmuck Schumer tirades on there a mirage or something?
> >
> >Schumer is on my side? I might as well shoot myself.
>
> ROFLMAO, I may have misspoke... well, let's just say he made a
> very ardent case for the murderous JBTs and against the children
> who died.
>

Ardent but ill informed and ill presented. Schumer is an idiot. I suppose
that stupid people need to be represented too.

> >> There was plenty of long minutes of FBI shills gobbing the Party
> >> Line. Both sides of the issue were examined.
> >
> >So long as the long minutes could be easily dismissed with contrary
> >information. No, I don't see it as balanced. The information presented was
> >highly selective.
>
> What was left out that shouldn't have been?

Two paras down.

>
> >>Just because the
> >> evidence didn't support the government-supremacist interperetation
> >> of the incident doesn't necessarily mean the movie was "tailoring"
> >> it away. What WAS there to support the government-supremacist
> >> position, which you think the movie might have left out?
> >
> >Pertinent testimony before the Congress from other agnets whose testimony
> >could not be so easily countered. You should hear ALL of Agent Rodriguez'
> >testimony, just to name one, rather than just the snips that are presented.
>
> What specifically should have been addressed more in depth?
>

This will work better if I can present it in his words. Gimme a little time
to prepare.

> >No mention of the DEA agents that were present to handle the meth lab if it
> >were found.
>
> Okay, there's one. But perhaps they didn't see the mere presence of
> agents for a "just in case" scenario as being particularly compelling for
> the gov't-supremacist side?

Bu they make the case that the meth lab didn't exist? That it was all a lie
to get free military support? That no review of the evidnece that
existed...scratch that. They simply state that there was no evidence don't
they? Seems that the evidnence was good enough to get DEA to show up.

[red.k...@mailexcite.com]

In article <891900313$31...@black-helicopter.psychetect.com>,

guru1...@aol.com (Guru165871) wrote:
>
>
> In article <891882300$21...@black-helicopter.psychetect.com>,
> red.k...@mailexcite.com writes:
>
> >> One thing that didn't make it into the movie, but was in Dick Reavis'
> >> book, was the fact that the bullets that killed Peter Gent came down
> >> at him from an upward source. Did ATF have any 150' tall agents on
> >> the scene shooting down at him, by any chance?
> >
> >If Peter Gent was in a standing position when he was shot, that is. Shooting
> >upward at an individual in an elevated point who is in a prone position can
> >give the same balistic result as if they were shot from above while standing.
> > I haven't seen the autopsy info on Gent. I suppose it's on the Waco Museum
> >site? I'll check.
>
> The video shot by the news crew shows him climbing, then briefly standing,
> then falling and dropping his rifle. I would ordinarily support the
> possibility
> of him being prone, but video evidence directly contradicts this.
>
> All in all, though, I wouldn't necessarily say it was much of an atrocity for
> some ATF agents in a helicopter to have shot at an individual brandishing
> a rifle at them. It DOES prove them LIARS, but then, that's also proven
> in many other areas of the case as well.
>

We still have a problem.

I did check the Waco Museum autopsy information.

It makes Mr. Revis out to be a liar.

The bullet entry wound was recorded as 53 inches above the heel through the
chest left of the center line. The bullet was removed at 53 inches above the
heel past the Aorta.

If the video shows what you say it does, then too, the Davidians are proven
to be liars when they claim that all he had with him was a paint scrapper.

Sounds like a whole lot of folks might have some vested interests they're
trying to protect? Hmmmm?

> >> >Then no chain of evidence is, or can be, good enough.
> >>
> >> Only when the feds won't allow independant laboratory inspection
> >> of the evidence.
> >
> >It was never disallowed.
> >
> >The Texas Rangers said that the weapons could be inspected on their site.
> >The offer was declined (I have a letter to this effect form the Texas
> Rangers.)
> >The weapons could be removed for analysis at a remote location now that
> >litigation is no longer pending. Call Congress and NRA and demand it now.
>
> It's when a trial IS pending that the evidence DOES need to be examined
> by an independant expert. This is basic rule of law they're trampling on
> here.
>

According to whom? If the defense request such an independent review and the
judge approves, then it is mandated. If "disinterested" parties seek such
review without court order and in such a manner as to break the chain of
evidence then it is not only wrong , its just plain silly.

To my knowledge, the defense never requested independent review.

If independent review is still deemed necessary by NRA, by members of
congress, or by you, then please make the appropriate petitions now. The
Texas Rangers still have the weapons. I verified that in the letter I have
as well.

I think it is instructive that NRA had to know that they would no be allowed
to remove the wepons for the review, insisted on it anyway, refused on-site
inspection, moaned about it afterward, but still have not attempted to
conduct the review, now that it could be done without procedural impropriety.

> >> The jury may have been naive enough not to be disturbed by the lack
> >> of independant review of the sear pins. Oh well, tough titty for the
> >> defense. But it still reeks of tampering on FBI's part that they're so
> >> possessive and secretive of their "evidence." They'll hold it up across
> >> the room from you and tell you it's "illegally modified," and expect you
> >> to take their word for it.
> >
> >So now there can be no sufficient chain of evidence and no sufficient jury
> >review, either?
>
> More to the point: it doesn't TAKE a sufficient chain of evidence to
> bamboozle a jury into a guilty verdict--that is, unless the defendant
> can afford Flea Bailey and Johnny Cochran, et. al.
>

So you can't trust a jury. You can't trust law enforcement. You can't trust
government. The anarchists are right and we should burn the public buildings
down tomorrow?

> >> >Even if it weren't, what about Ron Cole's admission on this group that the
> >> >BDs had automatic weapons that they had converted themselves?
> >>
> >> Objection, your honor: Hearsay. ;-)
> >
> >Hearsay? To evidence seen by the individual offering testimony? The post by
> >Mr. Cole is still in the DejaNews archive.
>
> Mr. Cole was AT Mount Carmel?
>

Not during the siege, but at a time, and for a long period, prior to.

Were you unaware that Mr. Cole was a Branch Davidian?

> >> DeGuerin testified to the Committee that he saw only inward-bound
> >> bullet holes. That combined with the fact the door was MISSING
> >> after the fire is headily suspicious.
> >
> >And an attorney would never make a "mistatement" in the interest of his
> >client.
>
> Which lends credibility to his testimony of what he saw. It's the
> government-supremacists who are saying he's lying, yet it's also
> the government itself which ensured evidence that might have
> proved him wrong "disappeared."
>

Or he's lying and evidence that would have been inconclusive is simply gone
or unrecoverable.

I guess we can both chose to belive what we like.

[Guru165871]

In article <891974101$29...@black-helicopter.psychetect.com>,
red.k...@mailexcite.com writes:

>The bullet entry wound was recorded as 53 inches above the heel through the
>chest left of the center line. The bullet was removed at 53 inches
above the
>heel past the Aorta.

So the source of the bullet was even with Gent, probably neither above
nor below. Perhaps a low helicopter fly-by, or maybe fire from the
rooftop team (which could have been mistaken for helicopter fire).

>If the video shows what you say it does, then too, the Davidians are proven
>to be liars when they claim that all he had with him was a paint scrapper.
>
>Sounds like a whole lot of folks might have some vested interests they're
>trying to protect? Hmmmm?

That goes without saying when some of 'em try to claim Koresh never
diddled any little girls.

>> It's when a trial IS pending that the evidence DOES need to be examined
>> by an independant expert. This is basic rule of law they're trampling on
>> here.
>
>According to whom? If the defense request such an independent review and the
>judge approves, then it is mandated. If "disinterested" parties seek such
>review without court order and in such a manner as to break the chain of
>evidence then it is not only wrong , its just plain silly.

The defense was stupid, then. Grounds for mistrial. ;-)

>> More to the point: it doesn't TAKE a sufficient chain of evidence to
>> bamboozle a jury into a guilty verdict--that is, unless the defendant
>> can afford Flea Bailey and Johnny Cochran, et. al.
>
>So you can't trust a jury. You can't trust law enforcement. You can't trust
>government. The anarchists are right and we should burn the public buildings
>down tomorrow?

All I'm saying is that most people these days are stupid.

>> Mr. Cole was AT Mount Carmel?
>
>Not during the siege, but at a time, and for a long period, prior to.

Hmmm...

>Were you unaware that Mr. Cole was a Branch Davidian?

I was not aware of that.

>> >And an attorney would never make a "mistatement" in the interest of his
>> >client.
>>
>> Which lends credibility to his testimony of what he saw. It's the
>> government-supremacists who are saying he's lying, yet it's also
>> the government itself which ensured evidence that might have
>> proved him wrong "disappeared."
>
>Or he's lying and evidence that would have been inconclusive is simply gone
>or unrecoverable.

SIMPLY GONE? How is it a huge metal DOOR is "simply gone?"

>I guess we can both chose to belive what we like.

In theory, anyway.

[Guru165871]

In article <891975005$30...@black-helicopter.psychetect.com>,
red.k...@mailexcite.com writes:

>> The lying was indeed probably the worst thing they did, but I think the
>> reckless endangerment of the agents "ain't chopped livah." That should
>> be good for at least a punch in the nose, like at the end of a very bad
>> action movie. ;-)
>
>That's waht hartnett was faced with when a group of angry agents who had
>participated in the raid (who should have been a priority for being relieved)
>had been left on the perimiter for 48 hours straight, got back and found out
>about his public statements. I beleive the implicit choice was to retract
>the statements or find himself in some equivalent of a dark alley with them
>for a protracted period of time.
>
>When we saw Hartnett (my brother and I) about the time my dad came back in
>from the perimiter, we considered the punch in the nose. Probably we made
>the right choice. Not sure sometimes.

I hear ya.

>> Exactly. Then instead of two Gestapos that work at cross-purposes and
>> trip each other up and almost act as an accidental system of checks and
>> balances with each other, you'd have one Almighty Monolith of baby-
>> burning jack-booted thuggery.
>
>I think you underestimate the tensions that exist between Justice and
>Treasury.

Treasury wouldn't matter if FBI swallowed all other agencies whole,
as it seems to want to do.

[Guru165871]

In article <891975001$30...@black-helicopter.psychetect.com>,
red.k...@mailexcite.com writes:

>Mind if I quibble?

Go right ahead:

>Rodriguez (one of my dad's former trainees) didn't "tell" the SAC to call off
>the raid. That'd be like an E-6 selling the Colonel to call off the attack.

Well, "strongly recommend," then. ;-)

>He reported what he knew and expected a reaction that was not forthcoming.
>
>In this case the E-6 had better judgment than the Colonel.

Not unheard-of.

>Technically, Rodriguez didn't tell the SAC anything. Chojnacki had already
>left the area. Rodriguez spoke to Cavanaugh, who relayed the infor to
>Sarabyn and Chojnacki.

I see the name "Sarabyn" and I immediately think of Sarin gas...

>> Well, it'd be even better to fragment the hell out of FBI instead, make it
>> LESS powerful. ;-)
>
>And we can spend more money on duplicated support services. I don't like it.

Freedom isn't free, young Jedi.

>Not to mention that 3 out of every 4 cases the FBI refers for prosecution is
>dropped by the AUSA as "legaly insufficient." Compare that with ATF's 1 in 3
>or DEA's 1 in 7. We already aren't getting our money's worth form FBI. Why
>make it worse.
>
>(Stats: See-- http://www.trac.syr.edu )

Well, "shotgun law enforcement" is hardly a surprise after their displays
of "shotgun standoff resolution" in Waco and Ruby Ridge. Turn 'em all
in, let AUSA sort 'em out--very similar to "Kill 'em all, let Bill Clinton
sort 'em out."

>> >> The documentary showed both sides of the story, did it not? Were
>> >> those Schmuck Schumer tirades on there a mirage or something?
>> >
>> >Schumer is on my side? I might as well shoot myself.
>>
>> ROFLMAO, I may have misspoke... well, let's just say he made a
>> very ardent case for the murderous JBTs and against the children
>> who died.
>
>Ardent but ill informed and ill presented. Schumer is an idiot. I suppose
>that stupid people need to be represented too.

I especially enjoyed his lengthy tirade to the effect that a flash-bang
grenade couldn't possibly hurt anyone!!! Almost as good as Alien
Sphinctre's Magic Bullet.

>> What was left out that shouldn't have been?
>
>Two paras down.
>
>> >>Just because the
>> >> evidence didn't support the government-supremacist interperetation
>> >> of the incident doesn't necessarily mean the movie was "tailoring"
>> >> it away. What WAS there to support the government-supremacist
>> >> position, which you think the movie might have left out?
>> >
>> >Pertinent testimony before the Congress from other agnets whose testimony
>> >could not be so easily countered. You should hear ALL of Agent Rodriguez'
>> >testimony, just to name one, rather than just the snips that are
>presented.
>>
>> What specifically should have been addressed more in depth?
>
>This will work better if I can present it in his words. Gimme a little time
>to prepare.

Okay. And Rodriguez is already a source I respect, so it should be
very much worth your while.

>> Okay, there's one. But perhaps they didn't see the mere presence of
>> agents for a "just in case" scenario as being particularly compelling for
>> the gov't-supremacist side?
>
>Bu they make the case that the meth lab didn't exist? That it was all a lie
>to get free military support? That no review of the evidnece that
>existed...scratch that. They simply state that there was no evidence don't
>they? Seems that the evidnence was good enough to get DEA to show up.

They requested DEA to show up and they did. That still isn't evidence.
Was there anything truly INDICATIVE of a meth lab that would stand
HCCRR's criteria of "evidence?" (Good thing for ATF they don't have
anyone with French surnames who don't like the British!)

[Rick Davis]

On Tue, 7 Apr 98 18:50:05 GMT, red.k...@mailexcite.com wrote:

>
>In article <891900309$31...@black-helicopter.psychetect.com>,
> guru1...@aol.com (Guru165871) wrote:
>>
>>
>> In article <891874218$16...@black-helicopter.psychetect.com>,

>> red.k...@mailexcite.com writes:
>>
>> >> > There was evidence [of a meth lab].
>> >>
>> >> What evidence?
>> >
>> >Overhead infrared photos that indicated a heat signature that accoriding to
>> >the Natiola Guard analyst could be consistent with a meth lab.
>> >Knowledge that there had been a meth lab on the premises before.
>> >Statements to Agent Rodriguez by Koresh that Mt. Carmel would be an ideal
>> >site for a meth lab.
>> >
>> >Before you tell me that this doesn't constitute probable cause, (and I'd
>> >agree) keep in mind that request for miltary assistance in connection with a
>> >"drug nexus" is not an application for a search warrant. All that is
>> >required is "evidence." No standard is applied by statute. Could be anything
>> from
>> >"the great weight and preponderance" to "the merest scintilla."
>> >The reason that there is no mention of any of the drug nexus info in the
>> >affidavit for search warrant is that the two processes are separate and
>> >distinct.
>>

>> This is why I've always said the so-called "Posse Comitatus" statute is
>> a ribald JOKE. You want military law enforcement? Just show a
>> "merest scintilla" of so-called "evidence" of a "drug nexus."
>>
>
>But even without the "drug nexus" the same training and support could have
>been obtained, without violataing Posse Comitatus. PC does not prohibit
>training. It does not cover the National Guard (or the Navy or the Marine
>Corps, for that matter.)
>

It ain't about Posse Comitatus, although there's plenty of room for
some of that.

It's the Klan Act Son, conspiracy to violate civil rights.

Has nothing to do with "the merest scintilla", the pathetic bastards
were called on their evidence and they lied. JTF6 called them on it to
cover their ass. The god damn US Army called them on it because they
thought these pathetic little cowboys were out of control.

So ATF lied, they claimed to have evidence of materials being delived
to Mt. Carmel that were consistant with the production of meth.

You know this Son, why the attempts to obsfiscate?

Why not show a little integrity. Along with your good manners, the
combination could take you far in life.

>> >> Errors. You've got a lot more self-control than I would. Your dad faced
>> >>the reality of the situation. How does he feel about Sarabyn and
>> >> "Get-Me-the-Hell-Outta-Here!" Chojnacki (and their superiors that probably
>> >> ordered them to go on with the raid, regardless of the loss of surprise)?
>> >
>> >He has little bad to say about them. They made the wrong call in a judgement
>> >situation. On that point he has no ill will toward them. Where he is
>> >displeased with them is on regard to their willingness to allow ex-DepDir
>> >Harnett to lie on national television. I suppose it covered their asses too.
>>

Interesting, was your dad on the raid planning team?

You know Son, one ATF agent blew his brains out over this incident.
Seems he was part of the undercover team and took alot of heat for a
bungeled operation. I guess maybe the guy felt responsible fo some of
the deaths, hell maybe even the Final Solution (tm.).
It's a god damn shame really. Anybody who has looked into this case
knows that it was a clusterfuck from the begining. These cowboys were
so far out of line, it would be funny if wasn't for the carnage that
was a direct result of their actions.

>> The lying was indeed probably the worst thing they did, but I think the
>> reckless endangerment of the agents "ain't chopped livah." That should
>> be good for at least a punch in the nose, like at the end of a very bad
>> action movie. ;-)
>>
>
>That's waht hartnett was faced with when a group of angry agents who had
>participated in the raid (who should have been a priority for being relieved)
>had been left on the perimiter for 48 hours straight, got back and found out
>about his public statements

How did the agents feel that left the scene and had a big get together
at some Waco resteraunt? I'll bet they felt cofident that they would
at least have their story straight if there was a shooting review.

>I beleive the implicit choice was to retract
>the statements or find himself in some equivalent of a dark alley with them
>for a protracted period of time.
>

I don't buy it Son. It took too long and there was plenty of press
that would have run with the story if the agents were interested in
getting it out.

>When we saw Hartnett (my brother and I) about the time my dad came back in

>from the perimiter, we considered the punch in the nose. ]

Ass-kickings were in order.

>Probably we made
>the right choice. Not sure sometimes.
>

No, the right choice would have been to wonder on down to the press
line and tell them they were being fed a bunch of bullshit.

Rick

[Rick Davis]

On Tue, 7 Apr 98 18:50:05 GMT, red.k...@mailexcite.com wrote:

>I think you underestimate the tensions that exist between Justice and
>Treasury.
>

Texas Rangers handed the Justice Dept. the results of their
investigation in which they believed they had evidence for a criminal
indictment of at least two Treasury agents. Justice refused to act.

I think your claims of "tensions" are hogwash. Johnston's and Jahn's
obstruction of justice on behalf of Treasury employees are part of the
public record. Anyone with more than a passing interest can verify
this easily. They do not bear scrutiny and they certainly don't
support your ridiculous claims.

Rick

[red.k...@mailexcite.com]

In article <891988521$37...@black-helicopter.psychetect.com>,
guru1...@aol.com (Guru165871) wrote:
>
>
> In article <891974101$29...@black-helicopter.psychetect.com>,

> red.k...@mailexcite.com writes:
>
> >The bullet entry wound was recorded as 53 inches above the heel through the
> >chest left of the center line. The bullet was removed at 53 inches
> above the
> >heel past the Aorta.
>

> So the source of the bullet was even with Gent, probably neither above
> nor below. Perhaps a low helicopter fly-by, or maybe fire from the
> rooftop team (which could have been mistaken for helicopter fire).
>

That squares with the agent accounts I have. The rooftop team started taking
fire from the tower and returned fire, though not before LeBleu and McKeehan
were killed.

> >If the video shows what you say it does, then too, the Davidians are proven
> >to be liars when they claim that all he had with him was a paint scrapper.
> >
> >Sounds like a whole lot of folks might have some vested interests they're
> >trying to protect? Hmmmm?
>

> That goes without saying when some of 'em try to claim Koresh never
> diddled any little girls.
>

> >> It's when a trial IS pending that the evidence DOES need to be examined
> >> by an independant expert. This is basic rule of law they're trampling on
> >> here.
> >
> >According to whom? If the defense request such an independent review and the
> >judge approves, then it is mandated. If "disinterested" parties seek such
> >review without court order and in such a manner as to break the chain of
> >evidence then it is not only wrong , its just plain silly.
>

> The defense was stupid, then. Grounds for mistrial. ;-)
>

Ineffective counsel? The defendants have to make that assertion.

> >> More to the point: it doesn't TAKE a sufficient chain of evidence to
> >> bamboozle a jury into a guilty verdict--that is, unless the defendant
> >> can afford Flea Bailey and Johnny Cochran, et. al.
> >
> >So you can't trust a jury. You can't trust law enforcement. You can't trust
> >government. The anarchists are right and we should burn the public buildings
> >down tomorrow?
>

> All I'm saying is that most people these days are stupid.
>

So justice is simply impossible.

> >> Mr. Cole was AT Mount Carmel?
> >
> >Not during the siege, but at a time, and for a long period, prior to.
>

> Hmmm...

>
> >Were you unaware that Mr. Cole was a Branch Davidian?
>

> I was not aware of that.
>

S'true.

> >> >And an attorney would never make a "mistatement" in the interest of his
> >> >client.
> >>
> >> Which lends credibility to his testimony of what he saw. It's the
> >> government-supremacists who are saying he's lying, yet it's also
> >> the government itself which ensured evidence that might have
> >> proved him wrong "disappeared."
> >
> >Or he's lying and evidence that would have been inconclusive is simply gone
> >or unrecoverable.
>

> SIMPLY GONE? How is it a huge metal DOOR is "simply gone?"
>

Gone, or unrecoverable. The melted theory is way out there, but there are
other things that could have happened. Except for all the lead out there,
I'd theorize that I might be able to find it with a metal detector.

> >I guess we can both chose to belive what we like.
>

> In theory, anyway.

<G>

[red.k...@mailexcite.com]

In article <891970535$28...@black-helicopter.psychetect.com>,

guru1...@aol.com (Guru165871) wrote:
>
>
> In article <891903001$33...@black-helicopter.psychetect.com>,
> red.k...@mailexcite.com writes:
>
> >Most interesting the research I've just been doing....
> >
> >Can anyone tell me about specific statements that W:ROE makes about Peter
> >Gent?
> >
> >I think I remember something but, I'm not sure. Something about the manner
> >in which he was shot.
>
> The footage of him GETTING shot, as far as I remember, with some
> narration of the event.
>

His weapon is visible in the scene?

[red.k...@mailexcite.com]

In article <891988508$36...@black-helicopter.psychetect.com>,
guru1...@aol.com (Guru165871) wrote:
>
>
> In article <891975005$30...@black-helicopter.psychetect.com>,

> red.k...@mailexcite.com writes:
>
> >> The lying was indeed probably the worst thing they did, but I think the
> >> reckless endangerment of the agents "ain't chopped livah." That should
> >> be good for at least a punch in the nose, like at the end of a very bad
> >> action movie. ;-)
> >
> >That's waht hartnett was faced with when a group of angry agents who had
> >participated in the raid (who should have been a priority for being relieved)
> >had been left on the perimiter for 48 hours straight, got back and found out

> >about his public statements. I beleive the implicit choice was to retract

> >the statements or find himself in some equivalent of a dark alley with them
> >for a protracted period of time.
> >

> >When we saw Hartnett (my brother and I) about the time my dad came back in

> >from the perimiter, we considered the punch in the nose. Probably we made

> >the right choice. Not sure sometimes.
>

> I hear ya.
>
> >> Exactly. Then instead of two Gestapos that work at cross-purposes and
> >> trip each other up and almost act as an accidental system of checks and
> >> balances with each other, you'd have one Almighty Monolith of baby-
> >> burning jack-booted thuggery.
> >

> >I think you underestimate the tensions that exist between Justice and
> >Treasury.
>

> Treasury wouldn't matter if FBI swallowed all other agencies whole,
> as it seems to want to do.
>

You've misunderstood or I was unclear.

FBI should remain status quo (well, sorta) The enforcement bureaus of the
Treasury Department should be merged to for what we could call the Treasury
Enforcement Agecy (TEA). Then you have two large organizations that would
actually be peers, thater than FBI lodring it over the smaller enforcement
agnecys. I'd even support (if I couldn't get the drug laws changed) moving
DEA to Treasury and putting them into TEA. Their mission seems more commerce
oreinted to me anyway.

Minus the DEA suggestion, this plan was reviewed in 1982. It was found that
it would save the American taxpayer, I forget the figure, many millions of
dollars annually.

[red.k...@mailexcite.com]

In article <891988505$36...@black-helicopter.psychetect.com>,
guru1...@aol.com (Guru165871) wrote:
>
>
> In article <891975001$30...@black-helicopter.psychetect.com>,

> red.k...@mailexcite.com writes:
>
> >Rodriguez (one of my dad's former trainees) didn't "tell" the SAC to call off
> >the raid. That'd be like an E-6 selling the Colonel to call off the attack.
>
> Well, "strongly recommend," then. ;-)
>

Granted.

> >He reported what he knew and expected a reaction that was not forthcoming.
> >
> >In this case the E-6 had better judgment than the Colonel.
>
> Not unheard-of.
>

Certainly not.

> >Technically, Rodriguez didn't tell the SAC anything. Chojnacki had already
> >left the area. Rodriguez spoke to Cavanaugh, who relayed the infor to
> >Sarabyn and Chojnacki.
>
> I see the name "Sarabyn" and I immediately think of Sarin gas...
>

<grimace>

> >> Well, it'd be even better to fragment the hell out of FBI instead, make it
> >> LESS powerful. ;-)
> >
> >And we can spend more money on duplicated support services. I don't like it.
>
> Freedom isn't free, young Jedi.
>

Little is, master Guru. I still want the most bang for my buck. Or is that
a poor choice of metaphor?

> >Not to mention that 3 out of every 4 cases the FBI refers for prosecution is
> >dropped by the AUSA as "legaly insufficient." Compare that with ATF's 1 in 3
> >or DEA's 1 in 7. We already aren't getting our money's worth form FBI. Why
> >make it worse.
> >
> >(Stats: See-- http://www.trac.syr.edu )
>
> Well, "shotgun law enforcement" is hardly a surprise after their displays
> of "shotgun standoff resolution" in Waco and Ruby Ridge. Turn 'em all
> in, let AUSA sort 'em out--very similar to "Kill 'em all, let Bill Clinton
> sort 'em out."
>

(off-subject) Do you know the original source of that quote?

> >> >> The documentary showed both sides of the story, did it not? Were
> >> >> those Schmuck Schumer tirades on there a mirage or something?
> >> >
> >> >Schumer is on my side? I might as well shoot myself.
> >>
> >> ROFLMAO, I may have misspoke... well, let's just say he made a
> >> very ardent case for the murderous JBTs and against the children
> >> who died.
> >
> >Ardent but ill informed and ill presented. Schumer is an idiot. I suppose
> >that stupid people need to be represented too.
>
> I especially enjoyed his lengthy tirade to the effect that a flash-bang
> grenade couldn't possibly hurt anyone!!! Almost as good as Alien
> Sphinctre's Magic Bullet.
>

Magic Bullet is at least entertaining.

> >> What was left out that shouldn't have been?
> >
> >Two paras down.
> >
> >> >>Just because the
> >> >> evidence didn't support the government-supremacist interperetation
> >> >> of the incident doesn't necessarily mean the movie was "tailoring"
> >> >> it away. What WAS there to support the government-supremacist
> >> >> position, which you think the movie might have left out?
> >> >
> >> >Pertinent testimony before the Congress from other agnets whose testimony
> >> >could not be so easily countered. You should hear ALL of Agent Rodriguez'
> >> >testimony, just to name one, rather than just the snips that are
> >presented.
> >>
> >> What specifically should have been addressed more in depth?
> >
> >This will work better if I can present it in his words. Gimme a little time
> >to prepare.
>
> Okay. And Rodriguez is already a source I respect, so it should be
> very much worth your while.
>

wait one....

> >> Okay, there's one. But perhaps they didn't see the mere presence of
> >> agents for a "just in case" scenario as being particularly compelling for
> >> the gov't-supremacist side?
> >
> >Bu they make the case that the meth lab didn't exist? That it was all a lie
> >to get free military support? That no review of the evidnece that
> >existed...scratch that. They simply state that there was no evidence don't
> >they? Seems that the evidnence was good enough to get DEA to show up.
>
> They requested DEA to show up and they did. That still isn't evidence.
> Was there anything truly INDICATIVE of a meth lab that would stand
> HCCRR's criteria of "evidence?" (Good thing for ATF they don't have
> anyone with French surnames who don't like the British!)
>

HCCRR's criteria of evidence is irrelevant. JTF-6 doesn't operate on HCCRR's
criteria but on that mandated by statute. It allows a lot of room and no
judicial review.

Should I list the evidence presented to JTF-6 once more?

[red.k...@mailexcite.com]

In article <892040701$53...@black-helicopter.psychetect.com>,

Funny, since JTF-6 developed the most crucial piece of that evidence
themselves.

> So ATF lied, they claimed to have evidence of materials being delived
> to Mt. Carmel that were consistant with the production of meth.
>
> You know this Son, why the attempts to obsfiscate?
>

I don't know that. This is the firs time I've heard this particulat
allegation. What is your source for the claim of knowledge of materials
delivery?

> Why not show a little integrity. Along with your good manners, the
> combination could take you far in life.
>

You should perhaps demonstrate that I knew it was false when I typed it.

> >> >> Errors. You've got a lot more self-control than I would. Your dad faced
> >> >>the reality of the situation. How does he feel about Sarabyn and
> >> >> "Get-Me-the-Hell-Outta-Here!" Chojnacki (and their superiors that probably
> >> >> ordered them to go on with the raid, regardless of the loss of surprise)?
> >> >
> >> >He has little bad to say about them. They made the wrong call in a judgement
> >> >situation. On that point he has no ill will toward them. Where he is
> >> >displeased with them is on regard to their willingness to allow ex-DepDir
> >> >Harnett to lie on national television. I suppose it covered their asses too.
> >>
>
> Interesting, was your dad on the raid planning team?
>

In a perepheral way.

> You know Son, one ATF agent blew his brains out over this incident.
> Seems he was part of the undercover team and took alot of heat for a
> bungeled operation. I guess maybe the guy felt responsible fo some of
> the deaths, hell maybe even the Final Solution (tm.).
> It's a god damn shame really. Anybody who has looked into this case
> knows that it was a clusterfuck from the begining. These cowboys were
> so far out of line, it would be funny if wasn't for the carnage that
> was a direct result of their actions.
>

Who killed himself?

> >> The lying was indeed probably the worst thing they did, but I think the
> >> reckless endangerment of the agents "ain't chopped livah." That should
> >> be good for at least a punch in the nose, like at the end of a very bad
> >> action movie. ;-)
> >>
> >
> >That's waht hartnett was faced with when a group of angry agents who had
> >participated in the raid (who should have been a priority for being relieved)
> >had been left on the perimiter for 48 hours straight, got back and found out
> >about his public statements
>
> How did the agents feel that left the scene and had a big get together
> at some Waco resteraunt? I'll bet they felt cofident that they would
> at least have their story straight if there was a shooting review.
>

What big get together are you refering to?

After action review is a critical part of any operation.

And what do you mean if. That one be initiated is mandatory. Completion
should be also, IMHO.

As it is, I am unaware of any "get together" that took place until quite some
time later.

> >I beleive the implicit choice was to retract
> >the statements or find himself in some equivalent of a dark alley with them
> >for a protracted period of time.
> >
> I don't buy it Son. It took too long and there was plenty of press
> that would have run with the story if the agents were interested in
> getting it out.
>

Agents are prohibited from commenting on the agency while the are agents.
Not all of them honored that. Not sure that they should have myself. Most
of them did though. And the three that I know of that didn't agonized over
it for a long time.

As for you buying it, I guess it doesn't make any difference. Fact is, it
would have made ATF look worse to have had conflicting, angry differences.
Best, first choice was to get Hartnett to retract himself.

> >When we saw Hartnett (my brother and I) about the time my dad came back in
> >from the perimiter, we considered the punch in the nose. ]
>
> Ass-kickings were in order.
>

maybe.

> >Probably we made
> >the right choice. Not sure sometimes.
> >
>
> No, the right choice would have been to wonder on down to the press
> line and tell them they were being fed a bunch of bullshit.

So you insist. I disagree. If Mr. Hartnett could be pursuaed to recant,
that's best. He can explain the difference any way he likes. If, for
example, my dad had made his own statement, it would have been his word
against Hartnett's, which resolves what, exactly?

[Rick Davis]

On Mon, 6 Apr 98 14:50:18 GMT, red.k...@mailexcite.com wrote:

>> > At the request of the Justice Department. ATF is still hot about it. My
>> > father intends to complete the shooting review for the book he and I are
>> > going to start after he retires.
>>

What a nice little piece of fiction this ought to be.
Hell son, you've already attributed three different versions of
Ballesteros claims about his actions that day. Those are in addition
to several different "official" versions he has made.

Any review done now is worthless. Each minute that has passed
decreased the value of these peoples statements, if you have any
interest in accuracy at all. Of course your father knows this with all
his years in law enforcement and all.

>> Good for him. You raised him right, Sonny. Hope other agents follow suit,
>> but I expect that you'll be villified by the FBI if you threaten their
>> credibility in any small way. Careful, though, or search and rescue will be
>> scraping you off a tree at Tahoe :) (And you didn't think you could ski)
>>
>
>Other agents are more than happy to cooperate. Like I said; there aren't any
>of them that are happy that it was called off. Their view: A clean shooting
>review was the only thing that would clear their names for certain. That it
>was called of at all, let alone for the reason given, only serves as a
>provocation of suspicion.

For crying out loud Son, there can be no such thing as a clean
shooting review. There are enough improprieties in the one that was
done. I'm talking about the review done by the Rangers. That one took
place over a period of months. They even allowed the agents a chance
to correct their statements.

I've seen the evolution that took place in their statements. They have
coaching, scripting and "cover my ass" written all over them. Two
agents, who have ATF firing the first shots in their original
statements, ended up changing their stories almost word for word when
it came to the trial.

Hell Son, the jury saw this. Why do you think they lost the case?

> My POV (and my father's, I suspect) is that the DoJ
>called it off deliberately to discredit ATF and DepTreas.

They called it off because it would have destroyed their case. The
record reflects that.

> Insult to injury,
>is that it didn't have to be called off.

Correct.
Upon the discovery that they were being lied to, Justice should have
started an immediate criminal investigation. Johnston should have
notified his boss of the impropriety at once. Since he had been
involved in the case before the assault, he should have excused
himself from the investigation. As soon as the perimeter was secure,
each ATF agent involved in the raid should have been relieved from
duty. A thorough interview of each agent should have been conducted
within 24 hours along with a complete audit of ammunition. Agents
whose behavior exceeded the bounds of the law or whose story did not
hold up under interrogation should have been arrested immediately.

You know Son, the same type of shooting review that any IA division in
the country would have conducted or risked having feds hauling their
ass off for violations of the Klan act.

Had Justice acted in their proper role in this case, within 72 hours
the General Services Administration would have trying to get a
contractor out to the Davidian residence to repair the damage caused
by Treasury. Instead they were bolstering the lies about drug
manufacture in order to secure more military equipment from the State
of Texas.

>ATF's former Deputy Director
>Hartnett (and the originator of the lies that were told by ATF personnel
>following the raid until confronted by angry agents), to whom DoJ directed the
>request, could have denied it and continued the review.

Son, if you think the only lies told about the February raid were
about the loss of surprise then you have really not paid any attention
to this case at all.
The Brady concerns were directed at the fact that many of the agents
were under the impression that ATF fired first. That little fact tends
to make it hard to sell the story of an ambush. You know Son, the
reasonable man rule.

Rick

[Rick Davis]

On Mon, 6 Apr 98 18:50:00 GMT, red.k...@mailexcite.com wrote:

>No mention of the DEA agents that were present to handle the meth lab if it
>were found.

This is too funny!
What's ATF policy on meth labs and flash bangs?

Rick

[Guru165871]

In article <892055105$59...@black-helicopter.psychetect.com>, rda...@airmail.net
(Rick Davis) writes:

>I think your claims of "tensions" are hogwash. Johnston's and Jahn's
>obstruction of justice on behalf of Treasury employees are part of the
>public record. Anyone with more than a passing interest can verify
>this easily. They do not bear scrutiny and they certainly don't
>support your ridiculous claims.

To play ATF's advocate here, what if Injustice Dept. officials took
extraordinary measures to "protect" ATF in such a way as to make
them look more guilty than they really were?

"It's Constantly Out Of His League Man!" --Crowe T. Robot
"Easily Bamboozled Man!" --Tom Servo
"At all times, he has the look of a man who has been hit by a fish" --Mark

[red.k...@mailexcite.com]

In article <892055105$59...@black-helicopter.psychetect.com>,

rda...@airmail.net (Rick Davis) wrote:
>
>
> On Tue, 7 Apr 98 18:50:05 GMT, red.k...@mailexcite.com wrote:
>

> >I think you underestimate the tensions that exist between Justice and
> >Treasury.
> >
>

> Texas Rangers handed the Justice Dept. the results of their
> investigation in which they believed they had evidence for a criminal
> indictment of at least two Treasury agents. Justice refused to act.
>

> I think your claims of "tensions" are hogwash. Johnston's and Jahn's
> obstruction of justice on behalf of Treasury employees are part of the
> public record. Anyone with more than a passing interest can verify
> this easily. They do not bear scrutiny and they certainly don't
> support your ridiculous claims.
>

> Rick
>

I don't know either of those names.

Easily verified? Who do I ask?

[Rick Davis]

On Wed, 8 Apr 98 17:50:05 GMT, red.k...@mailexcite.com wrote:

>
>In article <892040701$53...@black-helicopter.psychetect.com>,
> rda...@airmail.net (Rick Davis) wrote:
>>
>>
>> On Tue, 7 Apr 98 18:50:05 GMT, red.k...@mailexcite.com wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >In article <891900309$31...@black-helicopter.psychetect.com>,
>> > guru1...@aol.com (Guru165871) wrote:
>> >>
>> >>
>>
>> It ain't about Posse Comitatus, although there's plenty of room for
>> some of that.
>>
>> It's the Klan Act Son, conspiracy to violate civil rights.
>>
>> Has nothing to do with "the merest scintilla", the pathetic bastards
>> were called on their evidence and they lied. JTF6 called them on it to
>> cover their ass. The god damn US Army called them on it because they
>> thought these pathetic little cowboys were out of control.
>>
>
>Funny, since JTF-6 developed the most crucial piece of that evidence
>themselves.
>

Really, please elaborate.

>> So ATF lied, they claimed to have evidence of materials being delived
>> to Mt. Carmel that were consistant with the production of meth.
>>
>> You know this Son, why the attempts to obsfiscate?
>>
>
>I don't know that. This is the firs time I've heard this particulat
>allegation.

Hey, we've had this discussion before.

> What is your source for the claim of knowledge of materials
>delivery?
>

here's a couple of footnotes from the congressional investigation.
If anybody wants more detail, I'll be happy to post it.

Begin>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
(318) There are numerous examples of where ATF indicated to the
military there was an ``active
methamphetamine lab'' and ``deliveries of precursor chemicals.'' A few
are the February 17, 1993,
Operations Order, and the February 2, 1993, letter from Operation
Alliance to the Adjutant
General of the Texas National Guard counterdrug unit informing them
that ATF had requested
National Guard assistance in serving a Federal search warrant ``to a
dangerous, extremist
organization believed to be producing methamphetamine.'' Treasury
Documents T005551. See also
Defense Documents D-581.

(338) On February 2, 1993, ATF Special Agents Pali and Phil Lewis met
with representatives of
the JTF-6, Texas National Guard and Operation Alliance. Lewis
mentioned the delivery of
precursor chemicals to the residence. On February 4, 1993, ATF Special
Agents Lewis, Pali, and
ATF Special Agent Chuck Sarabyn met with representatives from JTF-6
and the Texas National
Guard to discuss evidence of a possible drug nexus. Attendees recall
Sarabyn showing documents
detailing the delivery of precursor chemicals to the residence.
However, Treasury has been unable
to find those documents. Letter from Department of Treasury to the
subcommittees (January 26,
1996) (responding to the subcommittees' request for information on
November 16, 1995.)

(339) Again, the subcommittees have never received this document
listing the methamphetamine
precursor chemicals, nor has ATF documentation on the delivery of such
chemicals to the Branch
Davidian residence been provided.

(340) Hearings Part 1 at 363, 369-370.

(341) Id. at 378. The Treasury Department has been unable to locate
these documents.
end>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>..

>> Why not show a little integrity. Along with your good manners, the
>> combination could take you far in life.
>>
>
>You should perhaps demonstrate that I knew it was false when I typed it.
>

I guess I could go to the archives, but as I said, we've been through
all this before.

>> >> >> Errors. You've got a lot more self-control than I would. Your dad faced
>> >> >>the reality of the situation. How does he feel about Sarabyn and
>> >> >> "Get-Me-the-Hell-Outta-Here!" Chojnacki (and their superiors that probably
>> >> >> ordered them to go on with the raid, regardless of the loss of surprise)?
>> >> >
>> >> >He has little bad to say about them. They made the wrong call in a judgement
>> >> >situation. On that point he has no ill will toward them. Where he is
>> >> >displeased with them is on regard to their willingness to allow ex-DepDir
>> >> >Harnett to lie on national television. I suppose it covered their asses too.
>> >>
>>
>> Interesting, was your dad on the raid planning team?
>>
>
>In a perepheral way.
>

Yep, I figured so.

>> You know Son, one ATF agent blew his brains out over this incident.
>> Seems he was part of the undercover team and took alot of heat for a
>> bungeled operation. I guess maybe the guy felt responsible fo some of
>> the deaths, hell maybe even the Final Solution (tm.).
>> It's a god damn shame really. Anybody who has looked into this case
>> knows that it was a clusterfuck from the begining. These cowboys were
>> so far out of line, it would be funny if wasn't for the carnage that
>> was a direct result of their actions.
>>
>
>Who killed himself?

This is a surprise to you?
I'd have to dig a little to find a cite, I believe I found it in NPR's
transcripts.

Don't have time now.

>
>> >I beleive the implicit choice was to retract
>> >the statements or find himself in some equivalent of a dark alley with them
>> >for a protracted period of time.
>> >
>> I don't buy it Son. It took too long and there was plenty of press
>> that would have run with the story if the agents were interested in
>> getting it out.
>>
>
>Agents are prohibited from commenting on the agency while the are agents.
>Not all of them honored that. Not sure that they should have myself. Most
>of them did though. And the three that I know of that didn't agonized over
>it for a long time.
>
>As for you buying it, I guess it doesn't make any difference. Fact is, it
>would have made ATF look worse to have had conflicting, angry differences.
>Best, first choice was to get Hartnett to retract himself.
>

ATF look worse?
Since when has a LEOs fist duty been to act as a public relations
officer?
What happened to the part about duty, honor, integrity, upholding the
constitution and all that jazz?

>> >When we saw Hartnett (my brother and I) about the time my dad came back in
>> >from the perimiter, we considered the punch in the nose. ]
>>
>> Ass-kickings were in order.
>>
>
>maybe.
>

Oh no doubt about it

>
>> >Probably we made
>> >the right choice. Not sure sometimes.
>> >
>>
>> No, the right choice would have been to wonder on down to the press
>> line and tell them they were being fed a bunch of bullshit.
>
>
>So you insist. I disagree. If Mr. Hartnett could be pursuaed to recant,
>that's best. He can explain the difference any way he likes. If, for
>example, my dad had made his own statement, it would have been his word
>against Hartnett's, which resolves what, exactly?
>

Which man posessed some integrity?
The merest scintilla, even.

Rick

[red.k...@mailexcite.com]

In article <892058701$62...@black-helicopter.psychetect.com>,

rda...@airmail.net (Rick Davis) wrote:
>
>
> On Mon, 6 Apr 98 14:50:18 GMT, red.k...@mailexcite.com wrote:
>
> >> > At the request of the Justice Department. ATF is still hot about it.
My
> >> > father intends to complete the shooting review for the book he and I
are
> >> > going to start after he retires.
> >>
>
> What a nice little piece of fiction this ought to be.
> Hell son, you've already attributed three different versions of
> Ballesteros claims about his actions that day. Those are in addition
> to several different "official" versions he has made.
>

Is that right? I'd like to see that.

I'm unaware of attributing anything I have said as coming from Agent
Ballesteros. That would be a trick as I neither know him nor have I spoken
with him.

> Any review done now is worthless. Each minute that has passed
> decreased the value of these peoples statements, if you have any
> interest in accuracy at all. Of course your father knows this with all
> his years in law enforcement and all.
>

I disagree with "worthless." Worth far less than it would have been if it
had been done in a timely fashion, certainly.

Is that a reason to criticize wanting to get something down on paper?

> >> Good for him. You raised him right, Sonny. Hope other agents follow
suit,
> >> but I expect that you'll be villified by the FBI if you threaten their
> >> credibility in any small way. Careful, though, or search and rescue
will be
> >> scraping you off a tree at Tahoe :) (And you didn't think you could
ski)
> >>
> >
> >Other agents are more than happy to cooperate. Like I said; there aren't
any
> >of them that are happy that it was called off. Their view: A clean
shooting
> >review was the only thing that would clear their names for certain. That
it
> >was called of at all, let alone for the reason given, only serves as a
> >provocation of suspicion.
>
> For crying out loud Son, there can be no such thing as a clean
> shooting review. There are enough improprieties in the one that was
> done. I'm talking about the review done by the Rangers. That one took
> place over a period of months. They even allowed the agents a chance
> to correct their statements.
>

You mean the incomplete one. The one that was improperly called off by the
DoJ.

No such thing as a clean shooting review? I think you have a strange idea
about what a shooting review is. One is supposed to be conducted everytime
an agent discharges a weapon in active duty. Clean shooting reviews are
common occurrances.

Care to talk about the "improprieties" that you know of? Where I caoul look
it up to verify, would also be helpful.

> I've seen the evolution that took place in their statements. They have
> coaching, scripting and "cover my ass" written all over them. Two
> agents, who have ATF firing the first shots in their original
> statements, ended up changing their stories almost word for word when
> it came to the trial.
>

Statements that were speculation. The changes were based on information that
they didn't have before trial.

> Hell Son, the jury saw this. Why do you think they lost the case?
>

They lost?

> > My POV (and my father's, I suspect) is that the DoJ
> >called it off deliberately to discredit ATF and DepTreas.
>
> They called it off because it would have destroyed their case. The
> record reflects that.
>

Where?

> > Insult to injury,
> >is that it didn't have to be called off.
>
> Correct.
> Upon the discovery that they were being lied to, Justice should have
> started an immediate criminal investigation.

Justice was being lied to? Justice wasn't conducting the review.

Johnston should have
> notified his boss of the impropriety at once. Since he had been
> involved in the case before the assault, he should have excused
> himself from the investigation. As soon as the perimeter was secure,
> each ATF agent involved in the raid should have been relieved from
> duty. A thorough interview of each agent should have been conducted
> within 24 hours along with a complete audit of ammunition. Agents
> whose behavior exceeded the bounds of the law or whose story did not
> hold up under interrogation should have been arrested immediately.
>

Some of this I know happened, and some of it is new to me. You like to harp
on what should have happened. I can't do that. I rather see what can be
done in spite of it.

> You know Son, the same type of shooting review that any IA division in
> the country would have conducted or risked having feds hauling their
> ass off for violations of the Klan act.
>

Show me.

> Had Justice acted in their proper role in this case, within 72 hours
> the General Services Administration would have trying to get a
> contractor out to the Davidian residence to repair the damage caused
> by Treasury. Instead they were bolstering the lies about drug
> manufacture in order to secure more military equipment from the State
> of Texas.
>

Why worry about the military equipment after the raid?

> >ATF's former Deputy Director
> >Hartnett (and the originator of the lies that were told by ATF personnel
> >following the raid until confronted by angry agents), to whom DoJ directed
the
> >request, could have denied it and continued the review.
>
> Son, if you think the only lies told about the February raid were
> about the loss of surprise then you have really not paid any attention
> to this case at all.
> The Brady concerns were directed at the fact that many of the agents
> were under the impression that ATF fired first. That little fact tends
> to make it hard to sell the story of an ambush. You know Son, the
> reasonable man rule.
>

You seem very knowledgeable about the Brady concerns. How about listing the
information gathered that could have been used under Brady.

Does reasonable man apply here? It is not a unviersal rule, you know?

[Guru165871]

In article <892056007$60...@black-helicopter.psychetect.com>,
red.k...@mailexcite.com writes:

>> >I think I remember something but, I'm not sure. Something about the
>> >manner in which he was shot.
>>
>> The footage of him GETTING shot, as far as I remember, with some
>> narration of the event.
>
>His weapon is visible in the scene?

It was roughly the same size as a weapon, and carried like one. When
I saw it, I surmized it to be one, though theoretically it could have been,
say, a chainsaw or a leaf blower or several golf clubs or some other
elongated implement of roughly the same size and shape as a rifle.
It was from far enough away that all you could really make out was a
person climbing the tower, briefly standing, falling, and dropping
something of that size/shape.

I ***DON'T*** think it was just a "paint scraper." A paint scraper is far
too small for the object I remember seeing.

I'll have to watch the video again this weekend and see if I can make
it out better.

[Guru165871]

In article <892056009$60...@black-helicopter.psychetect.com>,
red.k...@mailexcite.com writes:

>> So the source of the bullet was even with Gent, probably neither above
>> nor below. Perhaps a low helicopter fly-by, or maybe fire from the
>> rooftop team (which could have been mistaken for helicopter fire).
>
>That squares with the agent accounts I have. The rooftop team started taking
>fire from the tower and returned fire, though not before LeBleu and McKeehan
>were killed.

And it may have been an honest mistake for people to believe it came
from the helicopters, because the video of Gent dropping also showed
a helicopter close-by. Could be it was spotting, rather than shooting.

>> >> It's when a trial IS pending that the evidence DOES need to be examined
>> >> by an independant expert. This is basic rule of law they're trampling
>> >>on here.
>> >
>> >According to whom? If the defense request such an independent review and
>> >the judge approves, then it is mandated. If "disinterested" parties seek
such
>> >review without court order and in such a manner as to break the chain of
>> >evidence then it is not only wrong , its just plain silly.
>>
>> The defense was stupid, then. Grounds for mistrial. ;-)
>
>Ineffective counsel? The defendants have to make that assertion.

Ineffective defendants, LOL...

>> All I'm saying is that most people these days are stupid.
>
>So justice is simply impossible.

No, it just raises the stakes: it makes it all that more important to
have very slick, very effective lawyers who know how to manipulate
idiots on a jury. Multi-millionaire drug lords shouldn't have too
much of a problem getting far more than a fair trial. It's those with
scant resources that are probably shit outta luck. I guess no matter
what anyone does, Social Darwinism is here to stay.

>> >> Which lends credibility to his testimony of what he saw. It's the
>> >> government-supremacists who are saying he's lying, yet it's also
>> >> the government itself which ensured evidence that might have
>> >> proved him wrong "disappeared."
>> >
>> >Or he's lying and evidence that would have been inconclusive is simply
>> >gone or unrecoverable.
>>
>> SIMPLY GONE? How is it a huge metal DOOR is "simply gone?"
>
>Gone, or unrecoverable. The melted theory is way out there, but there are
>other things that could have happened. Except for all the lead out
there,
>I'd theorize that I might be able to find it with a metal detector.

I think it's "simply gone," alright, and that the FBI ***MADE*** it "gone."
And I don't think any amount of metal-detecting at the scene, even if
authorized, would come up with that particular piece of evidence.

[Guru165871]

In article <892056904$61...@black-helicopter.psychetect.com>,
red.k...@mailexcite.com writes:

>> >> Well, it'd be even better to fragment the hell out of FBI instead, make
>> >>it LESS powerful. ;-)
>> >
>> >And we can spend more money on duplicated support services. I don't like
>> >it.
>>
>> Freedom isn't free, young Jedi.
>
>Little is, master Guru. I still want the most bang for my buck. Or is that
>a poor choice of metaphor?

It's an entirely appropriate metaphor, but then if you want to spend less
money, let's just defund the sons o' bitches until they start to remember
who pays their salary.

(As Gurus go, I like to think of myself as that crotchety old Tibetan
one in the Eddie Murphy movie, "The Golden Child," as he says
"You're breaking my heart, asswipe.")

>> Well, "shotgun law enforcement" is hardly a surprise after their displays
>> of "shotgun standoff resolution" in Waco and Ruby Ridge. Turn 'em all
>> in, let AUSA sort 'em out--very similar to "Kill 'em all, let Bill Clinton
>> sort 'em out."
>
>(off-subject) Do you know the original source of that quote?

"Kill 'em all, let God sort 'em out" was from forces in Vietnam, and I
think several different units will claim it as their own, but if I remember
correctly it was the Army Special Forces who first coined it. (Though
it was the Air Cav who applied it more extensively...)

>> >Ardent but ill informed and ill presented. Schumer is an idiot. I
>> >suppose that stupid people need to be represented too.
>>
>> I especially enjoyed his lengthy tirade to the effect that a flash-bang
>> grenade couldn't possibly hurt anyone!!! Almost as good as Alien
>> Sphinctre's Magic Bullet.
>
>Magic Bullet is at least entertaining.

I get a strong desire to smash up furniture if I see Little Schmucky's
ugly mug too long at a time. He just has that look on his face, as if
he would slowly kill Mother Theresa for accidentally scratching his car.
It's a look I'm more familiar with than I'd care to be. (And I'd bet
substantial money he doesn't get along well with dogs and children...)

>> They requested DEA to show up and they did. That still isn't evidence.
>> Was there anything truly INDICATIVE of a meth lab that would stand
>> HCCRR's criteria of "evidence?" (Good thing for ATF they don't have
>> anyone with French surnames who don't like the British!)
>
>HCCRR's criteria of evidence is irrelevant.

***I'LL*** say... ;-)

>JTF-6 doesn't operate on HCCRR's
>criteria but on that mandated by statute. It allows a lot of room and no
>judicial review.
>
>Should I list the evidence presented to JTF-6 once more?

Perhaps a high-level summary of the top 6 most solid bits they
thought they had.

[Guru165871]

In article <892056900$61...@black-helicopter.psychetect.com>,
red.k...@mailexcite.com writes:

>> >I think you underestimate the tensions that exist between Justice and
>> >Treasury.
>>

>> Treasury wouldn't matter if FBI swallowed all other agencies whole,
>> as it seems to want to do.
>
>You've misunderstood or I was unclear.
>
>FBI should remain status quo (well, sorta) The enforcement bureaus of the
>Treasury Department should be merged to for what we could call the Treasury
>Enforcement Agecy (TEA). Then you have two large organizations that would
>actually be peers, thater than FBI lodring it over the smaller enforcement
>agnecys. I'd even support (if I couldn't get the drug laws changed) moving
>DEA to Treasury and putting them into TEA. Their mission seems more commerce
>oreinted to me anyway.
>
>Minus the DEA suggestion, this plan was reviewed in 1982. It was found that
>it would save the American taxpayer, I forget the figure, many millions of
>dollars annually.

I think the best thing to do would be to slowly, incrementally, almost
imperceptibly, lower FBI funding each year. When they start
squawking, just remind them "Hey, you have to start setting some
priorities here--spend those resources on finding REAL criminals!"

Clinton has been doing it to the DoD, and in spite of a lot of G.I.
grumbling, it HAS had a beneficial effect: they're wasting a lot
less, and actually advising the president NOT to go to war more
often, and trying to talk him out of all these ludicrous "peacekeeping"
missions. If DoD had money-to-burn like in the Reagan days, they'd
be all too HAPPY to play Globocop, settle every dispute around the
world, and spoon-feed Unimix into every single starving child (mainly
for the photo-ops).

[Guru165871]

In article <892066801$65...@black-helicopter.psychetect.com>, rda...@airmail.net
(Rick Davis) writes:

"Indicate," "mention," "discuss..."

Could it be "The Treasury Department has been unable to locate
these documents" because they were fabricated?

[Rick Davis]

On Wed, 8 Apr 98 20:05:01 GMT, red.k...@mailexcite.com wrote:

>
>In article <892055105$59...@black-helicopter.psychetect.com>,

> rda...@airmail.net (Rick Davis) wrote:
>>
>>
>> On Tue, 7 Apr 98 18:50:05 GMT, red.k...@mailexcite.com wrote:
>>

>> >I think you underestimate the tensions that exist between Justice and
>> >Treasury.
>> >
>>

>> Texas Rangers handed the Justice Dept. the results of their
>> investigation in which they believed they had evidence for a criminal
>> indictment of at least two Treasury agents. Justice refused to act.
>>
>> I think your claims of "tensions" are hogwash. Johnston's and Jahn's
>> obstruction of justice on behalf of Treasury employees are part of the
>> public record. Anyone with more than a passing interest can verify
>> this easily. They do not bear scrutiny and they certainly don't
>> support your ridiculous claims.
>>
>> Rick
>>
>
>I don't know either of those names.
>

Really?

They formed the base of the prosecutorial team in the trial against
the survivors.
They were involved in the investigation before the Feb. assault.
Johnston was the one responsible for killing the shooting review.
Jahn had the gag order placed on the agents during the siege. He was
also instrumental in Treasury's review which it was decided not to
review anyone (lest Brady material be developed) that started during
the siege.

>Easily verified? Who do I ask?

Look to the Judicial Comittee's review and read the trial transcripts.
You can also find references to their actions on just about any web
site that has an interest in civil liberties.

Rick

[HCCRR]

In article <892056904$61...@black-helicopter.psychetect.com>,
red.k...@mailexcite.com writes:

>Subject: Re: Waco, Rules of Engagement; some observations
>From: red.k...@mailexcite.com
>Date: Wed, 8 Apr 98 17:35:04 GMT
>
>
>In article <891988505$36...@black-helicopter.psychetect.com>,

> guru1...@aol.com (Guru165871) wrote:
>>
>>
>> In article <891975001$30...@black-helicopter.psychetect.com>,
>> red.k...@mailexcite.com writes:
>>
>> >Rodriguez (one of my dad's former trainees) didn't "tell" the SAC to call
>off
>> >the raid. That'd be like an E-6 selling the Colonel to call off the
>attack.
>>
>> Well, "strongly recommend," then. ;-)
>>
>
>Granted.
>
>> >He reported what he knew and expected a reaction that was not forthcoming.
>> >
>> >In this case the E-6 had better judgment than the Colonel.
>>
>> Not unheard-of.
>>
>
>Certainly not.
>
>> >Technically, Rodriguez didn't tell the SAC anything. Chojnacki had
>already
>> >left the area. Rodriguez spoke to Cavanaugh, who relayed the infor to
>> >Sarabyn and Chojnacki.
>>
>> I see the name "Sarabyn" and I immediately think of Sarin gas...
>>
>
><grimace>
>

>> >> Well, it'd be even better to fragment the hell out of FBI instead, make
>it
>> >> LESS powerful. ;-)
>> >
>> >And we can spend more money on duplicated support services. I don't like
>it.
>>
>> Freedom isn't free, young Jedi.
>>
>
>Little is, master Guru. I still want the most bang for my buck. Or is that
>a poor choice of metaphor?
>

>> >Not to mention that 3 out of every 4 cases the FBI refers for prosecution
>is
>> >dropped by the AUSA as "legaly insufficient." Compare that with ATF's 1
>in 3
>> >or DEA's 1 in 7. We already aren't getting our money's worth form FBI.
>Why
>> >make it worse.
>> >

>> >(Stats: See-- http://www.trac.syr.edu )

>>
>> Well, "shotgun law enforcement" is hardly a surprise after their displays
>> of "shotgun standoff resolution" in Waco and Ruby Ridge. Turn 'em all
>> in, let AUSA sort 'em out--very similar to "Kill 'em all, let Bill Clinton
>> sort 'em out."
>>
>
>(off-subject) Do you know the original source of that quote?
>

>> >> >> The documentary showed both sides of the story, did it not? Were
>> >> >> those Schmuck Schumer tirades on there a mirage or something?
>> >> >
>> >> >Schumer is on my side? I might as well shoot myself.
>> >>
>> >> ROFLMAO, I may have misspoke... well, let's just say he made a
>> >> very ardent case for the murderous JBTs and against the children
>> >> who died.
>> >

>> >Ardent but ill informed and ill presented. Schumer is an idiot. I
>suppose
>> >that stupid people need to be represented too.
>>
>> I especially enjoyed his lengthy tirade to the effect that a flash-bang
>> grenade couldn't possibly hurt anyone!!! Almost as good as Alien
>> Sphinctre's Magic Bullet.
>>
>
>Magic Bullet is at least entertaining.
>

>> They requested DEA to show up and they did. That still isn't evidence.
>> Was there anything truly INDICATIVE of a meth lab that would stand
>> HCCRR's criteria of "evidence?" (Good thing for ATF they don't have
>> anyone with French surnames who don't like the British!)
>>
>

>HCCRR's criteria of evidence is irrelevant. JTF-6 doesn't operate on HCCRR's

>criteria but on that mandated by statute. It allows a lot of room and no
>judicial review.

Hey I am just an innocent bystander in this thread!

>
>Should I list the evidence presented to JTF-6 once more?

>
>Grail IC
>

[Rick Davis]

On Wed, 8 Apr 98 21:05:00 GMT, red.k...@mailexcite.com wrote:

>
>I'm unaware of attributing anything I have said as coming from Agent
>Ballesteros. That would be a trick as I neither know him nor have I spoken
>with him.
>

Not wanting to start a Deja News pissing match, but since you asked;

begin>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

From: Son of ATF <sh...@ionet.net>
Date: 1997/01/06
Message-ID: <32D0B6...@ionet.net>
Newsgroups:
talk.politics.guns,alt.law-enforcement,alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.fan.g-gordon-liddy,alt.politics.org.batf,talk.politics.libertarian

[Subscribe to talk.politics.guns]
[More Headers]

Rick Davis wrote:
>
> On Thu, 02 Jan 1997 23:20:20 -0800, Son of ATF <sh...@ionet.net> wrote:
>
> >> Correct on the casualties argument, however, the surprise did still exist
> >to a degree. The BD's knew ATF was coming. They did not know how. They
> >did not know it was ATF *until* they deployed from the trailers and
> >trucks. In fact, one of the agents that was with the team going to the
> >front door told me that when Koresh opened the door, the first expression
> >he saw seemed to him to be surprise. His conjecture is that he kame out
> >the door to tell the ranchers who had pulled up to get away. When he
> >realized it was ATF. He smiled and closed the door as the firing began.
> >
> Wich agent would this be?
>
> Rick

I am not going to post an agent's name in a public forum, unless that
name has already been associated with media reports, etc.

From: rda...@airmail.net (Rick Davis)
Date: 1997/01/14
Message-ID: <32ea5e54....@news.airmail.net>
Newsgroups:
talk.politics.guns,alt.law-enforcement,alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.fan.g-gordon-liddy,alt.politics.org.batf,talk.politics.libertarian

[Subscribe to talk.politics.guns]
[More Headers]

On Thu, 09 Jan 1997 22:29:31 -0800, Son of ATF <sh...@ionet.net> wrote:

>Rick Davis wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, 08 Jan 1997 17:48:12 -0800, Son of ATF <sh...@ionet.net> wrote:
>>
>> >Joe Sylvester wrote:
>> >>Son of ATF <sh...@ionet.net> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >I am not going to post an agent's name in a public forum, unless that
>> >> >name has already been associated with media reports, etc.
>> >>
>> >> I belive all the names of the agents on the raid have been published.
>>
>> >No reason to take a chance. They deserve their privacy as much as
>> >anybody else.
>>
>> I don't disagree with that, but several of the agents have been shown
>> to be less than forthright with the truth, past the point of the
>> standard 'cover my ass syndrome' and up to the point of perjury.
>> Not a good group to select an anonymous source from.
>>
>> Rick
>
>Awright. Since last time I've discovered that the agents name has been
>published in the Appeals Court opinion. Special Agent Roland
>Ballesteros. And I was a little inaccurate.

end >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Rick

[Guru165871]

In article <892091101$79...@black-helicopter.psychetect.com>, HCCRR
<HC...@aol.com> writes:

>>> They requested DEA to show up and they did. That still isn't evidence.
>>> Was there anything truly INDICATIVE of a meth lab that would stand
>>> HCCRR's criteria of "evidence?" (Good thing for ATF they don't have
>>> anyone with French surnames who don't like the British!)
>>
>>HCCRR's criteria of evidence is irrelevant. JTF-6 doesn't operate on
>>HCCRR's criteria but on that mandated by statute. It allows a lot of
>>room and no judicial review.
>
>Hey I am just an innocent bystander in this thread!

You've established very clear rules of "evidence" for this newsgroup: if
it's something someone says, and you don't like that someone, it can
be discarded. ATF is saying there was a meth lab and since they're
not exactly my favorite crowd (though not nearly as bad as FBI), going
by YOUR rules of evidence I can discount what they say entirely. Far
from "innocent," you're a trend-setter, influencial in the ways these
discussions work. So pull up a chair and help us figure this one out:
remember that if any ATF agents refer to Branch Davidianism, they're
just as guilty of fascism as LaRouche is for saying "Zionism," (and indeed
the Branch Davidians WERE Zionists!!!) and thus disqualify the whole
agency from making any credible statements. You ready to play?

[red.k...@mailexcite.com]

In article <892059601$62...@black-helicopter.psychetect.com>,

Don't throw them into the room where the meth lab is supposed to be.

They didn't.

[red.k...@mailexcite.com]

In article <892105505$85...@black-helicopter.psychetect.com>,

rda...@airmail.net (Rick Davis) wrote:
>
>
> On Wed, 8 Apr 98 21:05:00 GMT, red.k...@mailexcite.com wrote:
>
> >

> >I'm unaware of attributing anything I have said as coming from Agent
> >Ballesteros. That would be a trick as I neither know him nor have I spoken
> >with him.
> >
>

> Not wanting to start a Deja News pissing match, but since you asked;

Have I misunderstood?

I have posted published statements that were made by Ballesteros. I had
thought that you meant that I had posted something that I had heard from
Ballesteros, i.e. a firsthand agent's account. I have several of those, but
not form Ballesteros.

As it seems that is not what you meant, I apologize. You are correct.

[Rick Davis]

On Mon, 6 Apr 98 18:50:00 GMT, red.k...@mailexcite.com wrote:

>No mention of the DEA agents that were present to handle the meth lab if it
>were found.

Nor did they mention the fact that DEA offered up a lab "take down"
team to handle the lab and that ATF rejected the offer.

The DEA agents (actually I think there was only one) were kinda added
like it was an afterthought and only after some prodding by the DEA
agents in Operation Alliance.

Nor did they mention the fact that US Army special forces wrote up
manual for the ATF explaining the precautions one should take when
dealing with clandestine labs and that ATF dissmissed it outright when
it was presented to them. This action had the officer convinced that
ATF was lying about the lab. The guy even mentioned as much in the
meeting or in his notes from the meeting that day.

Rick

[Rick Davis]

On Fri, 3 Apr 98 18:05:01 GMT, red.k...@mailexcite.com wrote:

>
>In article <891607808$20...@black-helicopter.psychetect.com>,
> rgche...@aol.com (RGCheek388) wrote:
>>
>>
>> I finally saw Waco,Rules of Engagement, and I am more convinced than ever
>of
>> the gross injustice, the bloody massacre, that occured there. This movie did
>an
>> excellent job in portraying what, from my POV, are indisputable facts.

>
>No one ever admitted that there were any automatic weapons aboard the
>helicopters.
>1) There were not
>2) There were handguns with the agents aboard, but
>3) The doors of the helicopters were never opened while in filght.
>
So they closed the door behind the guardsman that was hanging from a
tether filming the raid?

Give us a cite Son, about these doors.

>
>Even if it weren't, what about Ron Cole's admission on this group that the BDs
>had automatic weapons that they had converted themselves?
>
Come on Son, Cole was a Davidian wanabe. He wasn't at Mt. Carmel
before the assault.

>
>What admission are you refering to? There was evidence. And evidence, any
>evidence was all the standard required. Not even probable cause is required
>to obtain the assistance requested.
>

If any evidence was good enough, then why the need to fabricate the
evidence of precursor chemicals being delivered to Mt. Carmel?

>
>What has their being a cult or not got to do with it?
>

You tell me. It made it's way into the affidavit, why?

>
>No relation between Kiri Jewell and the charges investigated by Texas Child
>Welfare. Different incidents.
>
But then these allegations made there way into the affidavit also,
although the final disposition of the case was left out, why?

>Other charges were
>> similarly made and were also found to have no merit.
>
>This is true.

It is, and a pattern can be detected.
If one looks at the lies on the affidavit, the inflamatory statements
on the affidavit and the lies about drug manufacture, a genuine
pattern emerges.

A pattern that in fact suggests that these people did knowingly and
willfully enter into a conspiracy to deny these people their civil
rights.

>
>The door, if it showed what I beleive whoud be found, i.e. bullet holes going
>both ways, would proove what?
>
The fact that the door is missing shows the crime scene was tampered
with.

>
>Not blanked. Ran out. Since video tapes are of standard lengths, that they
>all "blanked" at about the same time is no great mystery.
>
Well then, by all means, let's turn them over. All of them, even the
ones shot by the agents with their personal cameras.

I believe the excuse I saw presented was malfunctioned. Kind of hard
to explain since ATF had a full time press agent down there whose job
was to pass out the film for "Showtime".

>
>At the request of the Justice Department. ATF is still hot about it. My
>father intends to complete the shooting review for the book he and I are going
>to start after he retires.

Hot about it my ass. Treasury had interviewed three agents when
Johnston shut the review down. His god damn case was falling apart.

While it may come as a surprise to the typical American (whom suffers
from battered wife symdrom), people do have the right to protect
themselves and their loved ones and that right extends to the use of
deadly force.

Texas law is clear on this.

The Davidians actions pass this test out of hand. The assault plan was
centered around "excessive use of force" even if the Davidians had
greeted the ATF with their presidential kneepads on (tm).

The federal statute is a little tougher to meet, having evolved out of
case law.

The federal statute evolved into the "reasonable man rule".
One does not have to look to hard to see that the Davidians passed
this test.

Reasonable Men #1

The ATF had requested Close Quaters Combat, Close Quaters Battle
Training from the US Army as part of their preparation for the
assault. Special Forces soldiers assigned to this task refused. They
went over the heads of the JTF6 officers to whom they were assigned
and told their comanding officer that they would not provide this
training without a direct order from him. They complained about the
appropriatness of giving such training to LEOs. THey also expressed
the concern that such tactics, when employeed on a house conaining
women and children "tends to produce trama" (gunshot) wounds to
children.

Reasonable Man #2

Agent Rodreguis after having made his historic call to the assault
comanders about the loss of surprise, decided to drive over to the ATF
comand center. Upon reaching it, he found it deserted except for the
press officer Sharon Wheeler. She told him of the decision to proceed
with the assault. His reaction was to break down and cry, repeating
the words "no, no no".
Was he being reasonable or just emotional?

These are people who had direct involvement with the cowboys in charge
of the assault. They saw the folly of these mens actions up close and
personal.

Resonable Men #3
There is another large group of people, some with combat experience,
others who have led men under stressfull situations, who see this
assault as sheer lunacy. Unbridaled beuracratic ignorance in the
extreme.
No resonable man, I'll repeat, NO man with the sense god gave a two
year old would have attemped this assault. It was a clusterfuck and
the results speak for themselves. The arrogance and ignorance involved
in this stunt is simply mind bogeling.

But once again I will post this just because I know you enjoy it too
much.

Begin ATF_comon_sense.txt>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Subject: BATF-Waco-Amateurs
From: uiop@*cyberramp.net (Qwert Uiop, Super Nerd)
Date: 1997/02/28
Message-Id: <331b6e5b...@newshost.cyberramp.net>
Organization: Lynch All Spammers Militia, North American Chapter
Reply-To: uiop@*cyberramp.net
Newsgroups: rec.org.mensa

My father was the Regional Director for the Bureau of
Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms for the South West Region,
until his retirement in the 1970's. He was one of the 7
first and last regional directors, as the bureau, under
Richard Nixon, was reorganized in the image of the FBI, by
concentrating power at the national level in Washington.

Under the old bureau, Waco could never have happened: the
decision was made by Washington, by people who had little or
no local knowledge. The Director of BATF in Washington at
the time had no law enforcement experience: he was promoted
out of the regulatory functions, never serving a day in law
enforcement. Its all too common for the power structure of
law enforcement in Washington to consist of political
appointees or lawyers or career civil service who have no
first-hand enforcement experience.

My father remarked while the siege was going on that if the
old guard were stil in charge, the "raid" would have been 2
BATF agents in suits politely knocking at the door, and
informing the Davidian compound residents of the warrant and
their legal options. Had they been refused, the would have
calmly left without provoking violence, then filed charges
against the group, and obtained warrants. Then with the
cooperation of the Texas Department of Public Safety, and
the Waco Sheriffs Department ,returned, with addition
agents. If violence broke out they would have surrounded the
compound, and waited them out. All inside would then have
been demonstatively guilty of resisting arrest, interfering
with a federal officer, resisting a legal warrant.

There is, as he pointed out, no reason for law enforcement
to use paramilitary tactics to enforce civilian law, no need
for federal "swat" teams or predawn no-knock raids. The
entire affair was handled totally unprofessionally: solely a
political decision and political grandstand,having no place
in law enforcement.

We can tolerate certain special units necessary for
anti-terrorism, provided they don't proliferate into
standard law enforcement, where they are a threat to civil
rights and liberties. At any level of honest professional
law enforcement, officers should behave as civilians, and as
cops, not as soldiers. The jobs are vastly different, an
usually mutually exclusive.

In the final analysis, law enforcement should be left to
civilian professionals, not politicians, not lawyers, not
soldiers, and especially not amateurs with no law
enforcement background. And the political policy of
concentrating all power in Washington, rather than at the
local level needs to be seriously questioned.

end>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>
>> 3) The initial ATF raid was mismanaged, poorly organized, and incompetently
>> executed from the start.
>
>I'll grant extreme errors of judgement in the decision to go ahead aftert
>surprise had been lost.
>

I'll grant that you have a gift for understatement.

>It was plainly a PR scheme from the word go, and
>even
>> losing the element of surprise 30MINUTES beforehand did not persuade them to
>> call off their wonderful show. Yes, it truly was "showtime" for the ATF, and
>> clearly they showed that the ATF should be immediately disbanded before they
>> massacre some other innocent community of Americans.
>>
>
>I'll support a dissolution of ATF.
>

Me too, the proper role for the federal goverment is as a protector
and enforcer of civil rights. The structural problem presented by
running such agencies out of Washington cannot be overcome. It's a
lesson that repeats it'self all too often and because of the political
ramifications it is not adressed. This Pathetic Bastard In Chief is
not the first president to lack the courage to do it.

>
>> My own wife, a typical loyal American who has debated various topics with me
>> over the years, was completely convinced by this movie. If there is anyone
>on
>> this planet inoculated to shocking evidence of gross injustice, it is she.
>> Waco, the Rules of Engagement, has opened her eyes, and she no longer
>believes
>> that the government was justified in what it did, nor that the Branch
>Davidians
>> deserved the horrid fate they recieved, either. If this movie can persuade
>her,
>> it can persuade anyone with an open mind. If you have any concern about the
>> abuse of state power, see this movie.
>
>
>Then the movie served the purpose for which it was tailored.
>
Actually, I was quite dissapointed.

>And it was tailored.

As are most of your responses.

Rick

[Awesome1]

In article <891626701$21...@black-helicopter.psychetect.com>, red.k...@mailexcite.com says...

>
> In article <891607808$20...@black-helicopter.psychetect.com>,
> rgche...@aol.com (RGCheek388) wrote:
> >
> >
> > I finally saw Waco,Rules of Engagement, and I am more convinced than ever
> of
> > the gross injustice, the bloody massacre, that occured there. This movie did
> an
> > excellent job in portraying what, from my POV, are indisputable facts.
> >

> > 1) The Feds have repeatedly lied about this whole thing:
> >
> > b) The ATF lied about there being no machine gun fire from helicopters in
> > the initial assault. What the government negotiators finally admit is that
> > there were no MOUNTED machine guns in those helicopters, but there were men
> > armed with automatic rifles in those helicopters and they did fire at the
> BD's.

> >
>
> No one ever admitted that there were any automatic weapons aboard the
> helicopters.

No one ADMITTED to having any automatic weapons? Sheesh

> 1) There were not

That must be why we can HEAR them.

> 2) There were handguns with the agents aboard, but
> 3) The doors of the helicopters were never opened while in filght.

That must be why we can see into the helicopter in the video.

BTW what type of fedgoon are you?

>
>
> > c) The ATF lied about what they were conducting their raid for. They got
> the
> > warrant claiming that the BD's had illegal full auto rifles in their
> posession,
> > but this was NEVER proven in court or before Congress, in fact the
> government
> > refused to give the weapons over for outside inspection untill well after
> the
> > feds could have altered them themselves.
>
> Then no chain of evidence is, or can be, good enough.

Most especially when it's in the hands of the fedgoons.

>
> It must have been proven in court to support the charges against Fatta.

>
> Even if it weren't, what about Ron Cole's admission on this group that the BDs
> had automatic weapons that they had converted themselves?
>

> They lied to the military about
> there
> > supposedly being a meth lab at the BD's home. There never was ANY evidence
> > provided of this, in fact the feds seem to have tacitly acknowleged that
> this
> > was a lie from the beginning; a thin veneer given to the military to justify
> > their assault training by the military in violation of the posse comitatus
> > laws.

>
> What admission are you refering to? There was evidence. And evidence, any
> evidence was all the standard required. Not even probable cause is required
> to obtain the assistance requested.

Pllleeeease. You have NO credibility.
Again, why don't you tell us which ATF office you work in?

>
> > d) The feds have repeatedly lied about the BDs being a cult. The
> dictionary
> > definition is that a cult is 1) a system of religion, and 2) devoted to a
> > personality or thing, as in 'Elvis Presley cult'. This is overly broad. In
> > general use, the term signifies a religious group under the hypnotic control
> of
> > a single charismatic leader to the extent that they give up their own sense
> of
> > individuality and reason. The Democratic Party would be anexellent example
> of
> > a cult if they were religious; considering the way they defend Clintons
> history
> > of crime and perversion defies all right reason. :) The BD's were not a
> cult
> > in this fashion. They had some very odd religious beliefs, but were there
> > because they agreed with Vernon Howell, not because of any mystic spell he
> > cast. The movie plainly shows that VH had an average appearance and a cracky
> > voice; there was little attractive or charismatic about him. The BD's also
> had
> > some very intelligent members there, some Harvard grads etc. And the locals,
> > the county sherriff, etc, knew them as good decent Americans. They were NOT
> a
> > cult, and no more excentric than many extreme protestant schisms. This
> 'cult'
> > claim is a lie told by the feds to justify the assaults and murders in the
> > minds of the general public. Even if they were 'cultists', this does not
> > invalidate their constitutional rights to purchase weapons or be treated to
> the
> > due processes of the law.

>
> What has their being a cult or not got to do with it?

Good question, why not ask the media, the fedgoons, etc.

>
> > e) The feds repeatedly have lied about the claims that V Howell molested
> > these children. The one girl presented in front of Congress had been
> > discreditted before, and their origen was in a divorce custody battle
> between a
> > BD mother and a nonBD father who thought such charges would get him custody
> > (they did). When the local child welfare officials investigated the matter
> they
> > found NO evidence to support the claims the girl made.

>
> No relation between Kiri Jewell and the charges investigated by Texas Child
> Welfare. Different incidents.

Not really. Both specious.

>
> Other charges were
> > similarly made and were also found to have no merit.
>
> This is true.
>
>

> > 2) The Feds have destroyed/obscurred evidence that would condemn their
> > conduct.
> > a) The front doors of the BD's home would prove who was lying about the
> > initial confrontation in the ATF raid, as each insisted the other fired
> first
> > through those doors. The Feds have somehow managed to 'lose' this set of
> metal,
> > double doors, and they were not consumed in the fire. Anyone with a brain
> knows
> > what really happened here.

>
> The door, if it showed what I beleive whoud be found, i.e. bullet holes going
> both ways, would proove what?

Why not ask your buddies where it is? Anyway why shoot thru
a "door" if you have set up an ambush?

>
> > b) The ATF was video taping the initial assault, and most of the
> videotape
> > that could have provided key evidence of the assault, and who started the
> gun
> > fire, have been mysteriously 'blanked'. Again, it doesnt take a rocket
> > scientist to figure this one out either.

>
> Not blanked. Ran out. Since video tapes are of standard lengths, that they
> all "blanked" at about the same time is no great mystery.

Sheesh do you really belive this crap? Or are you reading from
a script?

>
>
> > e) The individual after action reports of the ATF agents of the initial
> > raid were aborted. The officials explained that this could be evidence used
> to
> > clear the BD's later. This is a tacit admission of who was at fault for the
> > bloody massacre.

>
> At the request of the Justice Department. ATF is still hot about it. My
> father intends to complete the shooting review for the book he and I are going
> to start after he retires
> >

> > 3) The initial ATF raid was mismanaged, poorly organized, and incompetently
> > executed from the start.
>
> I'll grant extreme errors of judgement in the decision to go ahead aftert
> surprise had been lost.

Element of surprise? There never WAS an element of surprise.

>
> It was plainly a PR scheme from the word go, and
> even
> > losing the element of surprise 30MINUTES beforehand did not persuade them to
> > call off their wonderful show. Yes, it truly was "showtime" for the ATF, and
> > clearly they showed that the ATF should be immediately disbanded before they
> > massacre some other innocent community of Americans.
> >
>
> I'll support a dissolution of ATF.

And the FBI hostage roasting team?

>
>
> > My own wife, a typical loyal American who has debated various topics with me
> > over the years, was completely convinced by this movie. If there is anyone
> on
> > this planet inoculated to shocking evidence of gross injustice, it is she.
> > Waco, the Rules of Engagement, has opened her eyes, and she no longer
> believes
> > that the government was justified in what it did, nor that the Branch
> Davidians
> > deserved the horrid fate they recieved, either. If this movie can persuade
> her,
> > it can persuade anyone with an open mind. If you have any concern about the
> > abuse of state power, see this movie.
>
>
> Then the movie served the purpose for which it was tailored.
>

> And it was tailored.

Yeah tailored to show the truth about the fedgoon gestapo.
Tailored to expose the lies, which your seem to be ill equipped
to recognise.

E. Vigilance

--
Old Quote; "Necessity is the plea for every infringment of human liberty;
it is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves".

New Quote; "For the children is the plea for every infringment of human liberty;
it is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves."

E. Vigilance 1998

[red.k...@mailexcite.com]

In article <892164900$11...@black-helicopter.psychetect.com>,

rda...@airmail.net (Rick Davis) wrote:
>
>
> On Mon, 6 Apr 98 18:50:00 GMT, red.k...@mailexcite.com wrote:
>
> >No mention of the DEA agents that were present to handle the meth lab if it
> >were found.
>
> Nor did they mention the fact that DEA offered up a lab "take down"
> team to handle the lab and that ATF rejected the offer.
>
> The DEA agents (actually I think there was only one) were kinda added
> like it was an afterthought and only after some prodding by the DEA
> agents in Operation Alliance.
>

Former Director Higgins, testified that he belived there was one DEA agent,
actually there were two.

According to the document, "Investigation into the Activities of Federal Law
Enforcement Agencies Toward the Branch Davidians" (Doc 104-749) on page 42,
the two DEA agents that served as Operation Alliance board members, were
unconcerned as to ATF's handling, proposed or actual, of the alleged meth lab.

Where do you find your indication of "prodding?"

> Nor did they mention the fact that US Army special forces wrote up
> manual for the ATF explaining the precautions one should take when
> dealing with clandestine labs and that ATF dissmissed it outright when
> it was presented to them. This action had the officer convinced that
> ATF was lying about the lab. The guy even mentioned as much in the
> meeting or in his notes from the meeting that day.

Hmmm. Haven't read that far yet. I's comming up.

[HCCRR]

In article <892140615$97...@black-helicopter.psychetect.com>,
guru1...@aol.com (Guru165871) writes:

>Subject: Re: Waco, Rules of Engagement; some observations

>From: guru1...@aol.com (Guru165871)
>Date: Thu, 9 Apr 98 16:50:15 GMT

>
>
>In article <892091101$79...@black-helicopter.psychetect.com>, HCCRR
><HC...@aol.com> writes:
>
>>>> They requested DEA to show up and they did. That still isn't evidence.
>>>> Was there anything truly INDICATIVE of a meth lab that would stand
>>>> HCCRR's criteria of "evidence?" (Good thing for ATF they don't have
>>>> anyone with French surnames who don't like the British!)
>>>
>>>HCCRR's criteria of evidence is irrelevant. JTF-6 doesn't operate on
>>>HCCRR's criteria but on that mandated by statute. It allows a lot of
>>>room and no judicial review.
>>
>>Hey I am just an innocent bystander in this thread!
>
>You've established very clear rules of "evidence" for this newsgroup:

Hardly, I didn't invent the controlled media bullshit you and others have
used. Nor have come up with a thousand stupid excuses like you and your buds.

if
>it's something someone says, and you don't like that someone, it can
>be discarded.

I just doubt the veracity of Mr. LaRouche because of his previous statements,
few of which, if any, have been accurate. Its a personal opinion based on
about ten years of experience with the LaRouchites. Of course, you commit the
reverse offense of agreeing with him just because he shares your ridiculous
view that Bush is a fascist. You have a greater burden of proof and evidence
when you make such a claim.

ATF is saying there was a meth lab and since they're
>not exactly my favorite crowd (though not nearly as bad as FBI), going
>by YOUR rules of evidence I can discount what they say entirely. Far
>from "innocent," you're a trend-setter, influencial in the ways these
>discussions work.

Not a trend-setter, My crime is being around you too much. A few of your
tactics have rubbed off.

So pull up a chair and help us figure this one out:
>remember that if any ATF agents refer to Branch Davidianism, they're
>just as guilty of fascism as LaRouche is for saying "Zionism," (and indeed
>the Branch Davidians WERE Zionists!!!) and thus disqualify the whole
>agency from making any credible statements. You ready to play?

Not really. Red Knight needs no help from me on this subject.

BTW does it strengthen your argument in this thread to bash me? I don't
really care, but if it gives a sense of superiority to get thru the day, go
for it.

[red.k...@mailexcite.com]

In article <892211701$12...@black-helicopter.psychetect.com>,

rda...@airmail.net (Rick Davis) wrote:
>
>
> On Fri, 3 Apr 98 18:05:01 GMT, red.k...@mailexcite.com wrote:
>
> >
> >In article <891607808$20...@black-helicopter.psychetect.com>,
> > rgche...@aol.com (RGCheek388) wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> I finally saw Waco,Rules of Engagement, and I am more convinced than
ever
> >of
> >> the gross injustice, the bloody massacre, that occured there. This movie
did
> >an
> >> excellent job in portraying what, from my POV, are indisputable facts.
>
> >
> >No one ever admitted that there were any automatic weapons aboard the
> >helicopters.
> >1) There were not
> >2) There were handguns with the agents aboard, but
> >3) The doors of the helicopters were never opened while in filght.
> >
> So they closed the door behind the guardsman that was hanging from a
> tether filming the raid?
>
> Give us a cite Son, about these doors.
>

You'll have it tomorrow. It's in the Treasury report.

> >
> >Even if it weren't, what about Ron Cole's admission on this group that the
BDs
> >had automatic weapons that they had converted themselves?
> >
> Come on Son, Cole was a Davidian wanabe. He wasn't at Mt. Carmel
> before the assault.
>

Cole claims he used to live there. He left some time before the raid.

I'll admit that the record concerning his affiliation to the BD is a bit
muddled. Some places describe him as an heir to Koresh (Rocky Mountain News)
and others say that he and Koresh weren't on good terms. Hard to say.

> >
> >What admission are you refering to? There was evidence. And evidence, any
> >evidence was all the standard required. Not even probable cause is
required
> >to obtain the assistance requested.
> >
>
> If any evidence was good enough, then why the need to fabricate the
> evidence of precursor chemicals being delivered to Mt. Carmel?
>

I'll admit that being unable to produce the documents looks bad, but JTF-6
apparently accepted them at the time.

> >
> >What has their being a cult or not got to do with it?
> >
>
> You tell me. It made it's way into the affidavit, why?
>

Cultism was not a motivation for the raid, nor for the investigation. Some
of the teaching was a factor in some of the decisions that were made
tactically. The reason that the term cult is used in the affidavit is that an
affidavit is supposed to show some indication of the suspects motivations. In
this case, it was, on some points, the religious teachings of David Koresh.

> >
> >No relation between Kiri Jewell and the charges investigated by Texas Child
> >Welfare. Different incidents.
> >
> But then these allegations made there way into the affidavit also,
> although the final disposition of the case was left out, why?
>

Kiri Jewell is not in the affidavit.

The child abuse investigation is included only because it was the impetus of
the intelligence gathered by the Texas Child Welfare authorities.

> >Other charges were
> >> similarly made and were also found to have no merit.
> >
> >This is true.
>
> It is, and a pattern can be detected.
> If one looks at the lies on the affidavit, the inflamatory statements
> on the affidavit and the lies about drug manufacture, a genuine
> pattern emerges.
>

But the affidavit admits that the abuse allegations were found to have no
merit or were to old to be acted upon.

You really need to establish that wrong information is a "lie" before you labe
it such.

Or was Congress lying when they saud on page 21 of "Investigations...(cited
above), that Stephen Higgins was the "then Deputy Director of the ATF." When
he was actually the Director.

> A pattern that in fact suggests that these people did knowingly and
> willfully enter into a conspiracy to deny these people their civil
> rights.
>

I don't see the pattern.

What's the connection between Aguillera's mistkes, the use of words you don't
like, and a request of assitance that was wholly approved by the people whose
job it is to make sure that these things are done properly?

> >
> >The door, if it showed what I beleive whoud be found, i.e. bullet holes
going
> >both ways, would proove what?
> >
> The fact that the door is missing shows the crime scene was tampered
> with.
>
> >
> >Not blanked. Ran out. Since video tapes are of standard lengths, that
they
> >all "blanked" at about the same time is no great mystery.
> >
> Well then, by all means, let's turn them over. All of them, even the
> ones shot by the agents with their personal cameras.
>
> I believe the excuse I saw presented was malfunctioned. Kind of hard
> to explain since ATF had a full time press agent down there whose job
> was to pass out the film for "Showtime".
>

I'll need to chcek that further. My information says that the recorders
were set to the faster speeds, no the slower ones, so a 180 minute tape would
only capture 60 minutes. That this happened could be the result of oversight
or malfunction.

Sharron Wheeler is a field agent. She was assigned to public relations duty
for this operation. Hardly full time.

No such thing as "Showtime." It was Operation Trojan Horse.

The phrase used, "It's showtime," is a common idiom used for kicking off an
activity. You've never used it?

> >
> >At the request of the Justice Department. ATF is still hot about it. My
> >father intends to complete the shooting review for the book he and I are
going
> >to start after he retires.
>
> Hot about it my ass. Treasury had interviewed three agents when
> Johnston shut the review down. His god damn case was falling apart.
>

On the basis of three agents out of 75? Seems unreasonable and unlikely.

If you want ot know about hot, call the OKC ATF office and ask them how they
feel about it. I'm not kidding. Do it.

> While it may come as a surprise to the typical American (whom suffers
> from battered wife symdrom), people do have the right to protect
> themselves and their loved ones and that right extends to the use of
> deadly force.
>
> Texas law is clear on this.
>

Which is superceded by Federal law. (Supremacy cluse)

Even if it weren't, it would have to be shown under Texas law that the targets
were subjected to excessive force.

> The Davidians actions pass this test out of hand. The assault plan was
> centered around "excessive use of force" even if the Davidians had
> greeted the ATF with their presidential kneepads on (tm).
>

Not according to Judge Smith, the Texas Rangers, The Fifth Circuit Court of
Appeals.

That ATF did not accomplish their purpose is evedence in ATF's favor.
Excessive force would have rolled over the BDs, dontcha think?

> The federal statute is a little tougher to meet, having evolved out of
> case law.
>
> The federal statute evolved into the "reasonable man rule".
> One does not have to look to hard to see that the Davidians passed
> this test.
>
> Reasonable Men #1
>
> The ATF had requested Close Quaters Combat, Close Quaters Battle
> Training from the US Army as part of their preparation for the
> assault. Special Forces soldiers assigned to this task refused. They
> went over the heads of the JTF6 officers to whom they were assigned
> and told their comanding officer that they would not provide this
> training without a direct order from him. They complained about the
> appropriatness of giving such training to LEOs. THey also expressed
> the concern that such tactics, when employeed on a house conaining
> women and children "tends to produce trama" (gunshot) wounds to
> children.
>

The CQC/CQB training was unrelated to the Davidian raid and could not have
been completed prior to the raid. Not used at Mt. Carmel. Irrelevant.

> Reasonable Man #2
>
> Agent Rodreguez after having made his historic call to the assault

> comanders about the loss of surprise, decided to drive over to the ATF
> comand center. Upon reaching it, he found it deserted except for the
> press officer Sharon Wheeler. She told him of the decision to proceed
> with the assault. His reaction was to break down and cry, repeating
> the words "no, no no".
> Was he being reasonable or just emotional?
>

Not deserted. Wheeler was one of several. Sarabyn was no longer there.

He was being reasonable about his estimation that ATF's force would be
excessive? Quite the contrary.

> These are people who had direct involvement with the cowboys in charge
> of the assault. They saw the folly of these mens actions up close and
> personal.
>
> Resonable Men #3
> There is another large group of people, some with combat experience,
> others who have led men under stressfull situations, who see this
> assault as sheer lunacy. Unbridaled beuracratic ignorance in the
> extreme.
> No resonable man, I'll repeat, NO man with the sense god gave a two
> year old would have attemped this assault. It was a clusterfuck and
> the results speak for themselves. The arrogance and ignorance involved
> in this stunt is simply mind bogeling.
>
> But once again I will post this just because I know you enjoy it too
> much.
>

<snip>

He never dealt with the kind of element that is prevalent today. He was right
for his time. Not now.

<Snip>

[Rick Davis]

On Thu, 9 Apr 98 21:05:01 GMT, red.k...@mailexcite.com wrote:

>
>
>Have I misunderstood?
>
>I have posted published statements that were made by Ballesteros. I had
>thought that you meant that I had posted something that I had heard from
>Ballesteros, i.e. a firsthand agent's account. I have several of those, but
>not form Ballesteros.

Well then perhaps I missunderstood.

Maybe we should read it again.

begin>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >> Correct on the casualties argument, however, the surprise did still exist
> >to a degree. The BD's knew ATF was coming. They did not know how. They
> >did not know it was ATF *until* they deployed from the trailers and
> >trucks. In fact, one of the agents that was with the team going to the
> >front door told me that when Koresh opened the door, the first expression
> >he saw seemed to him to be surprise. His conjecture is that he kame out
> >the door to tell the ranchers who had pulled up to get away. When he
> >realized it was ATF. He smiled and closed the door as the firing began.

end>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

I guess it's this part that gets me confused

>>In fact, one of the agents that was with the team going to the
> >front door told me that when Koresh opened the door, the first expression
> >he saw seemed to him to be surprise.

Well this appears to be a firsthand account. Perhaps I'm just not
reading it right.

Rick

[red.k...@mailexcite.com]

In article <892225201$13...@black-helicopter.psychetect.com>,

Good grief.

In a conversation, statements usually follow one after the other. I chose to
mirror the phrasing of the individual with whom I was speaking. It leads to
fewer confusions and if I have misunderstood it gives the other person the
oportunity to clarify.

> > 1) There were not
>
> That must be why we can HEAR them.
>

By the sound on a video tape you can determine where they are coming from?

Is it a matter of standing with your ear over the appropriate part of the
screen as the scene is playing?

> > 2) There were handguns with the agents aboard, but
> > 3) The doors of the helicopters were never opened while in filght.
>
> That must be why we can see into the helicopter in the video.
>

You sure that that picture is from the day of the raid and during the period
in question?

> BTW what type of fedgoon are you?
>

The son of a fedgoon. Thank you very much.

> >
> >
> > > c) The ATF lied about what they were conducting their raid for. They
got
> > the
> > > warrant claiming that the BD's had illegal full auto rifles in their
> > posession,
> > > but this was NEVER proven in court or before Congress, in fact the
> > government
> > > refused to give the weapons over for outside inspection untill well
after
> > the
> > > feds could have altered them themselves.
> >
> > Then no chain of evidence is, or can be, good enough.
>
> Most especially when it's in the hands of the fedgoons.
>

So we give up and start buring down society tomorrow?

> >
> > It must have been proven in court to support the charges against Fatta.
> >
> > Even if it weren't, what about Ron Cole's admission on this group that the
BDs
> > had automatic weapons that they had converted themselves?
> >
> > They lied to the military about
> > there
> > > supposedly being a meth lab at the BD's home. There never was ANY
evidence
> > > provided of this, in fact the feds seem to have tacitly acknowleged that
> > this
> > > was a lie from the beginning; a thin veneer given to the military to
justify
> > > their assault training by the military in violation of the posse
comitatus
> > > laws.
> >
> > What admission are you refering to? There was evidence. And evidence,
any
> > evidence was all the standard required. Not even probable cause is
required
> > to obtain the assistance requested.
>
> Pllleeeease. You have NO credibility.
> Again, why don't you tell us which ATF office you work in?
>

I have no credibility? Why? This is easily verified by looking up the
statutes and regulations.

I don't work for ATF. My father does.

The media I can understand asking.

The feds though? If the Branch Davidians being a cult or otherwise were the
moitivation for either the raid or the investigation then you'd have a case.
Otherwise, I'm afraid you're barking up the wrong tree.

> >
> > > e) The feds repeatedly have lied about the claims that V Howell
molested
> > > these children. The one girl presented in front of Congress had been
> > > discreditted before, and their origen was in a divorce custody battle
> > between a
> > > BD mother and a nonBD father who thought such charges would get him
custody
> > > (they did). When the local child welfare officials investigated the
matter
> > they
> > > found NO evidence to support the claims the girl made.
> >
> > No relation between Kiri Jewell and the charges investigated by Texas
Child
> > Welfare. Different incidents.
>
> Not really. Both specious.
>

But neither have anything to do with the motivations for either the raid or
the investigation.

> >
> > Other charges were
> > > similarly made and were also found to have no merit.
> >
> > This is true.
> >
> >
> > > 2) The Feds have destroyed/obscurred evidence that would condemn their
> > > conduct.
> > > a) The front doors of the BD's home would prove who was lying about
the
> > > initial confrontation in the ATF raid, as each insisted the other fired
> > first
> > > through those doors. The Feds have somehow managed to 'lose' this set of
> > metal,
> > > double doors, and they were not consumed in the fire. Anyone with a
brain
> > knows
> > > what really happened here.
> >
> > The door, if it showed what I beleive whoud be found, i.e. bullet holes
going
> > both ways, would proove what?
>
> Why not ask your buddies where it is? Anyway why shoot thru
> a "door" if you have set up an ambush?
>

Why not? Surprise, comes to mind.

> >
> > > b) The ATF was video taping the initial assault, and most of the
> > videotape
> > > that could have provided key evidence of the assault, and who started
the
> > gun
> > > fire, have been mysteriously 'blanked'. Again, it doesnt take a rocket
> > > scientist to figure this one out either.
> >
> > Not blanked. Ran out. Since video tapes are of standard lengths, that
they
> > all "blanked" at about the same time is no great mystery.
>
> Sheesh do you really belive this crap? Or are you reading from
> a script?
>

I ran out of script a long time ago. I've been improvising it for about 16
months.

> >
> >
> > > e) The individual after action reports of the ATF agents of the
initial
> > > raid were aborted. The officials explained that this could be evidence
used
> > to
> > > clear the BD's later. This is a tacit admission of who was at fault for
the
> > > bloody massacre.
> >
> > At the request of the Justice Department. ATF is still hot about it. My
> > father intends to complete the shooting review for the book he and I are
going
> > to start after he retires
> > >
> > > 3) The initial ATF raid was mismanaged, poorly organized, and
incompetently
> > > executed from the start.
> >
> > I'll grant extreme errors of judgement in the decision to go ahead aftert
> > surprise had been lost.
>
> Element of surprise? There never WAS an element of surprise.
>

Never?

> >
> > It was plainly a PR scheme from the word go, and
> > even
> > > losing the element of surprise 30MINUTES beforehand did not persuade
them to
> > > call off their wonderful show. Yes, it truly was "showtime" for the ATF,
and
> > > clearly they showed that the ATF should be immediately disbanded before
they
> > > massacre some other innocent community of Americans.
> > >
> >
> > I'll support a dissolution of ATF.
>
> And the FBI hostage roasting team?
>

I can see the need for a tactiacl team. I would however amke reforms. The
most siginficant, I think would be that the HRT members would still be Agents
first and HRT second. The full time HRT breeds a a gung-ho, jingoistic
attitude.

> >
> >
> > > My own wife, a typical loyal American who has debated various topics
with me
> > > over the years, was completely convinced by this movie. If there is
anyone
> > on
> > > this planet inoculated to shocking evidence of gross injustice, it is
she.
> > > Waco, the Rules of Engagement, has opened her eyes, and she no longer
> > believes
> > > that the government was justified in what it did, nor that the Branch
> > Davidians
> > > deserved the horrid fate they recieved, either. If this movie can
persuade
> > her,
> > > it can persuade anyone with an open mind. If you have any concern about
the
> > > abuse of state power, see this movie.
> >
> >
> > Then the movie served the purpose for which it was tailored.
> >
> > And it was tailored.
>
> Yeah tailored to show the truth about the fedgoon gestapo.
> Tailored to expose the lies, which your seem to be ill equipped
> to recognise.
>

That's one opinion.

[red.k...@mailexcite.com]

In article <892256723$14...@black-helicopter.psychetect.com>,

I should have cited my source back then. That was from the 5th Circut court
opinion where it describes Ballesteros' testimony. Not from anything in my
possession from Ballesteros.

Sorry.

[fishcum]

Why didn't the Bush appointed FBI head just call in the US military
to just napalm those rebel bastards?!

fishcum

In article <892225201$13...@black-helicopter.psychetect.com>,
firebir...@gate.net (Awesome1) wrote:
>

[Kurt Lochner]

fishcum wrote:
>
> Why didn't the Bush appointed FBI head just call in the US military
> to just napalm those rebel bastards?!
>
> fishcum

Because the Bush/Reagan regime was 'soft' on the kind of religious
extremists that were at Waco. Years later, the Republican'ts
tried to hide their ties with the so-called "conservatives"
that favor religious zealotry and other forms of extremism..

--Pat Robertson comes to mind..

[Rick Davis]

On Fri, 10 Apr 98 17:20:01 GMT, red.k...@mailexcite.com wrote:

>
>In article <892211701$12...@black-helicopter.psychetect.com>,
> rda...@airmail.net (Rick Davis) wrote:
>>
>>
>> On Fri, 3 Apr 98 18:05:01 GMT, red.k...@mailexcite.com wrote:
>>
>> So they closed the door behind the guardsman that was hanging from a
>> tether filming the raid?
>>
>> Give us a cite Son, about these doors.
>>
>
>You'll have it tomorrow. It's in the Treasury report.
>

Ah yes, the Treasury report. Isn't that the same report whose
guidelines from Justice were;

"DOJ does not want Treasury to conduct any interviews or have
discussions with any of the participants, who may be potential
witnesses; the prosecutors do not want us to generate
additional _Jencks, Brady or Giglio_ material or oral statements which
could be used for impeachment."

Yes, I believe it was. Now with paramiters like that for launching an
investigation, should anyone put a hell of a lot of stock in it's
findings?

I might note that documents uncovered from a FOIA suit reveal that a
"memo of the training exercises mentions using gunshots from aircraft
to add to the distraction."

>> >
>> >Even if it weren't, what about Ron Cole's admission on this group that the
>BDs
>> >had automatic weapons that they had converted themselves?
>> >
>> Come on Son, Cole was a Davidian wanabe. He wasn't at Mt. Carmel
>> before the assault.
>>
>
>Cole claims he used to live there. He left some time before the raid.
>
>I'll admit that the record concerning his affiliation to the BD is a bit
>muddled. Some places describe him as an heir to Koresh (Rocky Mountain News)
>and others say that he and Koresh weren't on good terms. Hard to say.
>

It's not that hard to say....
I remember Cole from this group. I also remember when he made the
statement you attribute to him. I visited the boy's webpage back then.
The man had a *very* overactive imagination. Indications from the time
were that the man was a Davidian like my niece is a gangster rapper.

Some of the best evidence that *someone* had a full-auto out at
Mt.Carmel comes from David Hardy. He has been pursuing a Freedom of
Information Act suit against the ATF. After two years and
"two motions to dismiss, fourteen motions for stay or extension of
time, and two motions for summary judgment, we obtained quantities of
useful data, some of which the agencies admit was never revealed to
Congressional investigators."

Seems there was a recorder in the ATF radio van which captured an
interesting bit of audio.
"A full twelve minutes into the fight, there is a burst of full
automatic, which shocks the radio van crew."

Head on over to http://www.indirect.com/www/dhardy/waco.html
with the Real Audio plugin and listen for yourself.

>> >
>> >What admission are you refering to? There was evidence. And evidence, any
>> >evidence was all the standard required. Not even probable cause is
>required
>> >to obtain the assistance requested.
>> >
>>
>> If any evidence was good enough, then why the need to fabricate the
>> evidence of precursor chemicals being delivered to Mt. Carmel?
>>
>
>I'll admit that being unable to produce the documents looks bad, but JTF-6
>apparently accepted them at the time.
>

People accept fraudulent documents all the time. It's not a crime if
they don't knowingly accept them.
The crime is in creating and submitting them. In this case that crime
would be a felony.

>
>> >Other charges were
>> >> similarly made and were also found to have no merit.
>> >
>> >This is true.
>>
>> It is, and a pattern can be detected.
>> If one looks at the lies on the affidavit, the inflamatory statements
>> on the affidavit and the lies about drug manufacture, a genuine
>> pattern emerges.
>>
>
>But the affidavit admits that the abuse allegations were found to have no
>merit or were to old to be acted upon.
>

Unfortunatly, i've been unable to find these admissions.

Please show me where Aguillera states that Mrs. Sparks had been
ordered ten months earlier to close the investigation due to lack of
evidence.

While you're at it, perhaps you can give us a clue asto why Aguillera
fails to point out that the FBI had investigated the false
imprisioment/sexual slave allegation in April 1992 and closed the case
in June 1992.

Might as well go ahead and point out where in the affidavit Aguillera
informs the magistrate that Mr. Breault was blind even though Danny
boy has him doing duty as an armed guard and taking part in firearms
training.

Tell us about these sentries, the armed guards, 24hrs. a day 7 days a
week Aguillera speaks of. Show us where Danny boy informs the
magistrate that based upon info provided by his undercover agents, the
assault planners "concluded that neither armed guards nor sentries
were posted at the Compound at any time."

But, I'll refrain from doing a point by point review of Aguillera's
affidavit lest this post turn into one of those 1000 liners that
nobody reads. Instead I'll post the impressions related by the
Judicial commission after having done a coursery examination into the
charges relayed by Aguillera, this being one of the shorter critiques
availlible.

Begin>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

While the warrants may have met the minimal standard of
constitutional sufficiency, the affidavit supporting the warrants
contained numerous misstatements of the facts, misstatements of the
law, and misapplication of the law to the facts, and serves as a de
facto record of a poorly developed and mismanaged investigation. The
affidavit included misleading and factually inaccurate statements,
contained substantial irrelevant and confusing information, and failed
to properly qualify witnesses' testimony when obviously called for
based on their backgrounds. Consequently, the affidavit gave the
appearance that the ATF was not going to let questionable facts or
evidence stand in the way of moving forward on their timetable.

The affidavit provided and sworn to by Aguilera contained numerous
errors and misrepresentations, which, taken together, create a
seriously flawed affidavit. The affidavit misstated that Koresh
possessed a British Boys anti-tank .52 caliber rifle, when in fact
Koresh owned a Barret light .50 firearm.(31) Possession of the British
Boys would have been a felony (32) while possession of the Barret was
completely legal. The affidavit misstated that the M16 parts kits from
Nesard company were two CAR and two EZ kits which contained all the
parts of an M16 machine gun except for the lower receiver unit, when,
in fact, the Nesard parts kits do not contain the auto sear and pin
which are absolutely necessary to convert semi automatic weapons to
machine guns.(33) The affidavit failed to mention that grenade hulls
like those cited in the affidavit to help establish probable cause had
been sold by the Davidians in the past at gun shows as paper weights
and mounted on plaques. Finally, the affidavit was misleading by
reporting that Deputy Sheriff Terry Fuller was in the vicinity of the
compound when he heard a loud explosion, but then failed to report
that Fuller investigated and learned that the Davidians were using
dynamite for construction.

Former Davidian Marc Breault provided much of the information
contained in the ATF's affidavit. Yet, nowhere in the affidavit is it
mentioned that Breault left the compound as an opponent of Koresh, a
fact certain to call into question Breault's motives. Nor does the
affidavit mention that he is blind. On the contrary, the affidavit
implies that he was a compound bodyguard. It states that
Breault ``participated in physical training and firearm shooting
exercises conducted by Howell. He stood guard armed with a loaded
weapon.''(34)

The affidavit also contained misapplications of firearms law.
The affidavit alleged the violation of one statute: 26 U.S.C. &#167;
5845(f). This statute, however, merely defines ``destructive device.''
It does not establish any crime. It is 26 U.S.C. &#167; 5861 which
establishes crimes related to destructive devices. The affidavit also
confused the term ``explosive'' with the term ``explosive device,'' a
term which does not appear in Federal law.

In the affidavit, Aguilera misstated that a ``machinegun
conversion kit'' was a combination of parts ``either designed or
intended'' to convert a semiautomatic into an automatic firearm. In
fact, Federal law defines a conversion kit to be a combination of
parts ``designed and intended'' to convert a semiautomatic into an
automatic.(35)

In the affidavit, Aguilera also misstated that Koresh had
ordered M-16 ``EZ kits.'' The kits to which Aguilera was referring are
called ``E2'' kits. Furthermore, the E2 kit is a spare parts kit, not
a conversion kit. It contains spare parts which fit either a
semiautomatic Colt AR-15 Sporter or an automatic Colt M-16 automatic.
Because it is not a conversion kit, the E2 kit is not regulated by
Federal law. Yet the affidavit implies that the kit's purpose is for
converting semiautomatics into automatics. On this point, the Treasury
Department Report is mistaken as well. While it correctly named the E2
kit, it wrongly asserted that ``the parts in the kit can be used with
an AR-15 rifle or lower receiver to assemble a machinegun . . . The
parts in the E2 kit also can be used to convert an AR-15 into a
machinegun.''(36) These assertions are false. The Treasury Department
regulates genuine conversion kits as if they were themselves
machineguns. It does not regulate E2 kits.

Intimating that Koresh was converting AR-15 Sporters and
semiautomatic copies of AK-47's into automatics, Aguilera included
evidence of purchases made by Koresh from a South Carolina Company
which was known to sell parts needed to convert semiautomatics of the
type that Koresh possessed into automatics. Aguilera failed even to
allege that Koresh purchased parts from this company which would have
allowed the conversion of semiautomatics into automatics. Nowhere in
the affidavit is there evidence that Davidians were manufacturing
their own automatic sears, or modifying the lower receivers of
semiautomatics, both of which would have been violations of firearms
laws.

The affidavit was misleading in that it falsely referred to
``clandestine'' publications. The affidavit reported that in June
1992, a witness had ``observed at the compound published magazines
such as, the Shotgun News and other related clandestine
magazines.''(37) Far from clandestine, Shotgun News has a circulation
of about 165,000. Subscriptions are available by mail or telephone.
The Austin, TX ATF office, Aguilera's home office, was a subscriber.

>You really need to establish that wrong information is a "lie" before you labe
>it such.

Well Son, I don't post with a psydonym. There is redress availible
through the civil courts if these people believe I have
misscharacterised their actions.

I also have a reloding bench with some quanity of smokeless powder,
and like the hapless Davidians, I most likely have in my possession a
shotgun and a hacksaw, if they should choose to avail themselves of
other methods.

I agree with the conclusion of the Judicial commitee when they stated;

....."the affidavit filed in support of the warrants contained an
incredible number of false statements. The ATF agents responsible
for preparing the affidavits knew or should have known that many of
the statements were false."

"If the false statement in the affidavits filed in support of the
search and arrest warrants were made with knowledge of their falsity,
criminal charges should be brought against the persons making the
statements."

"The most troubling aspects of the case were; .....and an
affidavit in support of the search and arrest warrants that was
replete with deficiencies."

I believe the former Govenor of Texas, Miss Ann, when she stated that
the ATF lied to her office in order to secure military support.

And since Son, we can place Aguillera in one of these meetings in
which the charge was made, "that the ATF had evidence of the delivery
of precursor chemicals" and since said evidence is now somehow lost or
destroyied, and since the ATF has been unable to produce ANY evidence
of the delivery of precursor chemicals, and since such charges were
made by varrious ATF agents on several occassions, and since such
charges were made by Aguillera's subordanates in his presence, then
it's pretty god damned self-evident that a conspiracy developed.....
and since such charges were used to secure military equipment and
training for a paramilitary assault, and since the the MAJORITY of the
people TARGETED in this paramilitary ASSAULT were nothing more than a
bunch of harmless religious loons, women, children, the elderly, not a
hell of a lot differient in either faith or fanaticism then my
Penticostal grandmother......
and since no reasonable man, not even in a fit of drunkenness, would
send one hundred, heavily armed, adrenaline pumped, John Clark wanabee
stormtroopers, hands shaking, assault weapons at the ready, fingers on
the triggers, sprinting out of cattle trailers.......
some of them scarred as hell and praying they'll get through this shit
and make back to wacth the results on the nightly news..... others,
with a little more Rambo in their blood, just hoping they'll get an
opportunity to take out that "child molesting sonofabitch" or one of
them so-called "mighty men"........

A god damned thunder clap will set people off in those kinds of
situations, much less an accidential discharge, shooting a dog or any
one of about fifty other explainations that are just as plausible and
we can only speculate about now.

Seasoned troops have been know to go off on innocents or each other in
such situations, much less a bunch of glorified building inspectors.

Why and the hell, someone would lie and conspire in order to impliment
such a raid is beyond me.
But then again, the fact that these ignorant bastards are still plying
their trade as federal LEOs is something I simply cannot fathom.

Such raids should always be the last choice and only considered if the
risk to innocents is exceeded by the risks of the operation. In other
words, a hostage situation. Yet these Bastards were requesting CQBT/
CQCT before they even started the undercover operation.

>
>Or was Congress lying when they saud on page 21 of "Investigations...(cited
>above), that Stephen Higgins was the "then Deputy Director of the ATF." When
>he was actually the Director.
>

Considering they refer to him correctly a couple of paragraphs down
and throughout the rest of the report, I suspect they deserve the
benifit of doubt.

>> A pattern that in fact suggests that these people did knowingly and
>> willfully enter into a conspiracy to deny these people their civil
>> rights.
>>
>
>I don't see the pattern.
>

Just like the child that claims "moma really deserved to have her ass
kicked. She should know better than to mess with daddy when he's
drunk".

It reflects poorly on your charactor, Son.

>What's the connection between Aguillera's mistkes, the use of words you don't
>like, and a request of assitance that was wholly approved by the people whose
>job it is to make sure that these things are done properly?
>

Son, I have always maintained that in the unlikely event these peoples
actions were to be examined by a grand jury, that family members of
ATF agents, JTF6 officers, and possibly a couple of members of the
Texas NG would be fulfilling requests for soap on a rope.

But simply excuseing their fraud because JTF6 looked the other way
when it was presented to them, don't make it right.

This wasn't some secretary from OMB that took a little stationary.

It is a felony for a revenue agent to commit fraud in the process of
collecting revenue.
This also wasn't some street cop doing a little "batting practice" on
sombodie's head cause he didn't say "yes sir" with enough deferance.

Whatever their motives, production of meth is a serious charge, a huge
loss of life, on both sides, incurred as a result of their conspiracy.

>

>Sharron Wheeler is a field agent. She was assigned to public relations duty
>for this operation. Hardly full time.
>

Okay, full time for the Waco assault only.

>No such thing as "Showtime." It was Operation Trojan Horse.
>

Yep.

>The phrase used, "It's showtime," is a common idiom used for kicking off an
>activity.

What, when kicking ones little sister's ass?

> You've never used it?
>

Nope, not ever.

>> >
>> >At the request of the Justice Department. ATF is still hot about it. My
>> >father intends to complete the shooting review for the book he and I are
>going
>> >to start after he retires.
>>
>> Hot about it my ass. Treasury had interviewed three agents when
>> Johnston shut the review down. His god damn case was falling apart.
>>
>
>On the basis of three agents out of 75? Seems unreasonable and unlikely.
>

Actually four, one more was interviewed but Johnston didn't allow any
written notes to be taken.......

Lest it be used against them you see.....

Miranda on steriods.....

>If you want ot know about hot, call the OKC ATF office and ask them how they
>feel about it. I'm not kidding. Do it.
>

All the more reason to write a book about it. Do the shooting review
six years afterward. The memories will become much more convienent.
Hell, they might just steal the Pullister for revisionist history from
them National Alliance boys.

>
>> The Davidians actions pass this test out of hand. The assault plan was
>> centered around "excessive use of force" even if the Davidians had
>> greeted the ATF with their presidential kneepads on (tm).
>>
>
>Not according to Judge Smith, the Texas Rangers, The Fifth Circuit Court of
>Appeals.
>

Judge Smith
"Your not going to put the Goverment on trial hear"

Texas Rangers
Handed DoJ the case files on two Treasury employees on whom the
thought they could make Felony indictments

The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals.

Ever read the desenting opinion in that case Son?

Got another question. Did two out of three of those Judges even read
the trial transcripts?

>That ATF did not accomplish their purpose is evedence in ATF's favor.

Kinda like the diference between rape and attemped rape?

>Excessive force would have rolled over the BDs, dontcha think?

Oh it rolled em allright.....
I reckon they rolled Shiela Martin's deaf and blind son's wheelchair
further away from the glass after ATF's incomming took out a window
and cut his face all up.
Childeren rolled under the beds. Women rolled onto their childeren to
protect them from projectiles fired blindly by goverment agents,
puchased from a contract let by the General Services Administration.

Yep, they rolled em...

Makes me right proud to be a merikan.

Out of time, Son and out of patience.

Rick

[red.k...@mailexcite.com]

In article <892070406$67...@black-helicopter.psychetect.com>,
guru1...@aol.com (Guru165871) wrote:
>
>
> In article <892056009$60...@black-helicopter.psychetect.com>,
> red.k...@mailexcite.com writes:

> >> >Or he's lying and evidence that would have been inconclusive is simply
> >> >gone or unrecoverable.
> >>
> >> SIMPLY GONE? How is it a huge metal DOOR is "simply gone?"
> >
> >Gone, or unrecoverable. The melted theory is way out there, but there are
> >other things that could have happened. Except for all the lead out
> there,
> >I'd theorize that I might be able to find it with a metal detector.
>
> I think it's "simply gone," alright, and that the FBI ***MADE*** it "gone."
> And I don't think any amount of metal-detecting at the scene, even if
> authorized, would come up with that particular piece of evidence.
>
>

Wanna go back to my persnal favorite conspiracy theory?

FBI found the door and disappeared it in order to hide evidence that would
have been exculpatory of ATF actions. Same reason as calling off the shooting
review.

[red.k...@mailexcite.com]

In article <892070408$67...@black-helicopter.psychetect.com>,
guru1...@aol.com (Guru165871) wrote:
>
>
> In article <892056904$61...@black-helicopter.psychetect.com>,
> red.k...@mailexcite.com writes:
>

> >> Well, "shotgun law enforcement" is hardly a surprise after their displays
> >> of "shotgun standoff resolution" in Waco and Ruby Ridge. Turn 'em all
> >> in, let AUSA sort 'em out--very similar to "Kill 'em all, let Bill
Clinton
> >> sort 'em out."
> >
> >(off-subject) Do you know the original source of that quote?
>

> "Kill 'em all, let God sort 'em out" was from forces in Vietnam, and I
> think several different units will claim it as their own, but if I remember
> correctly it was the Army Special Forces who first coined it. (Though
> it was the Air Cav who applied it more extensively...)

Roman Catholic Bishop/General during the Albigensian Crusade:

Kill them all. God will recognize His own.

[red.k...@mailexcite.com]

In article <892070408$67...@black-helicopter.psychetect.com>,
guru1...@aol.com (Guru165871) wrote:
>
>
> In article <892056904$61...@black-helicopter.psychetect.com>,
> red.k...@mailexcite.com writes:
>

> I get a strong desire to smash up furniture if I see Little Schmucky's
> ugly mug too long at a time. He just has that look on his face, as if
> he would slowly kill Mother Theresa for accidentally scratching his car.
> It's a look I'm more familiar with than I'd care to be. (And I'd bet
> substantial money he doesn't get along well with dogs and children...)
>

Schmucky? = Schumer? or Spector?

> >> They requested DEA to show up and they did. That still isn't evidence.
> >> Was there anything truly INDICATIVE of a meth lab that would stand
> >> HCCRR's criteria of "evidence?" (Good thing for ATF they don't have
> >> anyone with French surnames who don't like the British!)
> >
> >HCCRR's criteria of evidence is irrelevant.
>

> ***I'LL*** say... ;-)

>
> >JTF-6 doesn't operate on HCCRR's
> >criteria but on that mandated by statute. It allows a lot of room and no
> >judicial review.
> >

> >Should I list the evidence presented to JTF-6 once more?
>

> Perhaps a high-level summary of the top 6 most solid bits they
> thought they had.

Statements from Koresh to Rodriguez that Mt. Carmel would be an ideal place
for a meth lab.

FLIR photos showing heat source identified by a National Guard airman
working for JTF-6 as a possible lab set up.

The known existance of a meth lab at Mt. Carmel in the past.

It is not probable cause. But JTF-6 doesn't require probable cause. Just
"evidence."

[Guru165871]

In article <892227012$13...@black-helicopter.psychetect.com>, HCCRR
<HC...@aol.com> writes:

>> if
>>it's something someone says, and you don't like that someone, it can
>>be discarded.
>
>I just doubt the veracity of Mr. LaRouche because of his previous statements,
>few of which, if any, have been accurate. Its a personal opinion based on
>about ten years of experience with the LaRouchites. Of course, you commit
>the
>reverse offense of agreeing with him just because he shares your ridiculous
>view that Bush is a fascist. You have a greater burden of proof and evidence
>when you make such a claim.

The documented facts are thus:

1. Prescott Bush was a Nazi sympathiser who promoted Third Reich
causes from 1933 through 1942.

2. The brothers John Foster and Allen Dulles were a part of this
American group.

3. John Foster Dulles became Secretary of State and Allen Dulles
became Director of Central Intelligence.

4. Prescott Bush carefully guided George's studies and early
career, to include membership in Skull and Bones, and the core
"Jupiter Island" group at the nexus of the CIA. This is demonstrably
from the fact that Prescott Bush and the Dulles brothers were
associates in "The Hitler Project." Some punk off the street doesn't
just wander into such a group without an inside mentor, so what
better mentor than one's own father, a proven NAZI, to make a
recommendation to a NAZI employer (who had also recently
employed a vast array of NAZI war criminals)?

5. Allen Dulles recruited 2,000 to 5,000 Nazis at the end of World
War II, directly into the CIA. George Bush, son of Allen Dulles' old
banking buddy, later became Director of the CIA. I point this out to
remind you that top levels in this institution are very exclusive, and
one has to have a certain pedigree to advance. One can even go so
far as to say a GENETIC pedigree. Arguably, when a Nazi
sympathiser hires legions of "ex" Nazis at the very foundation of a
secret intelligence agency, this speaks to the nature of what kind
of "stuff" a person has to have in order to "make it" in such a
business. One must be of a certain genetic strain--Ubermenschen.

6. CIA, under George Bush's directorship, actively and very
energetically promoted and upheld third world dictatorships
of a fascist nature. Somoza in Nicaragua, Marcos in the Phillipines,
Noriega in Panama, the list goes on and on. The American public
was told that these men were "anti-Communists," and so everything
was okay.

7. 100,000 Iraqis are killed. It's alright there, too, because after
all, Iraqis aren't "real people." (Mud people, right?)

8. The Drug War, instigated primarily by Bush's direction through
his avatar, Ronald Reagan, has had a devastating toll on minority
communities here in the U.S., and on Latin America in general.

9. While Hitler rose to power in Germany extolling "Liebensraum"
and the dangers of a large Jewish population, George Bush was
always wary of the dangers of a large Third World population (with
"Liebensraum" the inherent result of such a population's dramatic
reduction). It would seem that extensive support for dictatorial
regimes who actively promoted "death squads" went a long way
toward those ends.

The above comes, not from Lyndon LaRouche, not from me, not
from any individual PERSON. It comes from history itself: the
archives of the Justice Department on the Prescott Bush case;
the record of Brown Brothers Harriman; the CIA's own logs and
memorandae; Clinical studies of minority communities; the FBI's
own records. And personally, I don't care if a person assembling
these facts is Lyndon LaRouche or Peter Motherfucking Pan. The
facts stand on their own.

>> ATF is saying there was a meth lab and since they're
>>not exactly my favorite crowd (though not nearly as bad as FBI), going
>>by YOUR rules of evidence I can discount what they say entirely. Far
>>from "innocent," you're a trend-setter, influencial in the ways these
>>discussions work.
>
>Not a trend-setter, My crime is being around you too much. A few of your
>tactics have rubbed off.

MY tactics? YOU are the one saying that if you don't like someone,
you can brush everything aside that has any remote connection to
anything that person might have said.

>> So pull up a chair and help us figure this one out:
>>remember that if any ATF agents refer to Branch Davidianism, they're
>>just as guilty of fascism as LaRouche is for saying "Zionism," (and indeed
>>the Branch Davidians WERE Zionists!!!) and thus disqualify the whole
>>agency from making any credible statements. You ready to play?
>
>Not really. Red Knight needs no help from me on this subject.
>
>BTW does it strengthen your argument in this thread to bash me? I don't
>really care, but if it gives a sense of superiority to get thru the day, go
>for it.

You're an integral part of the newsgroup. You're a player. You've
established what is and what is not EVIDENCE, and if applied to
the legal system, basically all convicts go free. Woo hoo!!! The
anarchists will LOVE this!

[Guru165871]

In article <892499704$28...@black-helicopter.psychetect.com>,
red.k...@mailexcite.com writes:

>> >(off-subject) Do you know the original source of that quote?
>>
>> "Kill 'em all, let God sort 'em out" was from forces in Vietnam, and I
>> think several different units will claim it as their own, but if I remember
>> correctly it was the Army Special Forces who first coined it. (Though
>> it was the Air Cav who applied it more extensively...)
>
>Roman Catholic Bishop/General during the Albigensian Crusade:
>
>Kill them all. God will recognize His own.

And they wonder that some Muslims aren't exactly fans of the Pope...

[Guru165871]

In article <892499701$28...@black-helicopter.psychetect.com>,
red.k...@mailexcite.com writes:

>> I think it's "simply gone," alright, and that the FBI ***MADE*** it "gone."
>> And I don't think any amount of metal-detecting at the scene, even if
>> authorized, would come up with that particular piece of evidence.
>
>Wanna go back to my persnal favorite conspiracy theory?
>
>FBI found the door and disappeared it in order to hide evidence that would
>have been exculpatory of ATF actions. Same reason as calling off the
>shooting review.

That could work, too. It's a two-edged sword, mishandling evidence.

[Guru165871]

In article <892499707$29...@black-helicopter.psychetect.com>,
red.k...@mailexcite.com writes:

>Schmucky? = Schumer? or Spector?

Schumer, LOL.

>> Perhaps a high-level summary of the top 6 most solid bits they
>> thought they had.
>
>Statements from Koresh to Rodriguez that Mt. Carmel would be an ideal place
>for a meth lab.

Okay.

>FLIR photos showing heat source identified by a National Guard airman
>working for JTF-6 as a possible lab set up.

Okay.

>The known existance of a meth lab at Mt. Carmel in the past.

Okay--that Hungarian guy, right?

>It is not probable cause. But JTF-6 doesn't require probable cause. Just
>"evidence."

Rather than "evidence," I'd probably have to go with "indication."

[dckom]

On Tue, 14 Apr 98 12:05:05 GMT c.e., guru1...@aol.com (Guru165871) wrote
:

>
>In article <892499704$28...@black-helicopter.psychetect.com>,
>red.k...@mailexcite.com writes:
>
>>> >(off-subject) Do you know the original source of that quote?
>>>
>>> "Kill 'em all, let God sort 'em out" was from forces in Vietnam, and I
>>> think several different units will claim it as their own, but if I remember
>>> correctly it was the Army Special Forces who first coined it. (Though
>>> it was the Air Cav who applied it more extensively...)
>>
>>Roman Catholic Bishop/General during the Albigensian Crusade:
>>
>>Kill them all. God will recognize His own.
>
>And they wonder that some Muslims aren't exactly fans of the Pope...

Guru, you'll have to change one word. That particular crusade was against
other Christians.
David

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Free thought, neccessarily involving freedom of
speech and press, I may tersely define thus:no
opinion a law-no opinion a crime.
Alexander Berkman

[red.k...@mailexcite.com]

In article <892555505$55...@black-helicopter.psychetect.com>,

guru1...@aol.com (Guru165871) wrote:
>
>
> In article <892499704$28...@black-helicopter.psychetect.com>,
> red.k...@mailexcite.com writes:
>
> >> >(off-subject) Do you know the original source of that quote?
> >>
> >> "Kill 'em all, let God sort 'em out" was from forces in Vietnam, and I
> >> think several different units will claim it as their own, but if I remember
> >> correctly it was the Army Special Forces who first coined it. (Though
> >> it was the Air Cav who applied it more extensively...)
> >
> >Roman Catholic Bishop/General during the Albigensian Crusade:
> >
> >Kill them all. God will recognize His own.
>
> And they wonder that some Muslims aren't exactly fans of the Pope...
>

Muslims?

The Albegensians were "heretical" christian Frenchmen.

[Guru165871]

In article <892560001$57...@black-helicopter.psychetect.com>, dc...@atlcom.net
(dckom) writes:

>>>Roman Catholic Bishop/General during the Albigensian Crusade:
>>>
>>>Kill them all. God will recognize His own.
>>
>>And they wonder that some Muslims aren't exactly fans of the Pope...
>

>Guru, you'll have to change one word. That particular crusade was against
>other Christians.

Why does that not surprise me?

[HCCRR]

In article <892504241$34...@black-helicopter.psychetect.com>,
guru1...@aol.com (Guru165871) writes:

>Subject: Re: Waco, Rules of Engagement; some observations
>From: guru1...@aol.com (Guru165871)

>Date: Mon, 13 Apr 98 21:50:41 GMT

>
>
>In article <892227012$13...@black-helicopter.psychetect.com>, HCCRR
><HC...@aol.com> writes:
>
>>> if
>>>it's something someone says, and you don't like that someone, it can
>>>be discarded.
>>
>>I just doubt the veracity of Mr. LaRouche because of his previous
>statements,
>>few of which, if any, have been accurate. Its a personal opinion based on
>>about ten years of experience with the LaRouchites. Of course, you commit
>>the
>>reverse offense of agreeing with him just because he shares your ridiculous
>>view that Bush is a fascist. You have a greater burden of proof and
>evidence
>>when you make such a claim.
>
>The documented facts are thus:
>
>1. Prescott Bush was a Nazi sympathiser who promoted Third Reich
>causes from 1933 through 1942.

Not a documented fact, just a string of speculative assertions. Was he a
member of the Nazi Party? Was he a member of the German-American Bund? No in
both cases. The fact that Prescott Bush had wide financial interests,
including some that might deal with Germany in the 1930s, doesn't
automatically make him a symp. Also I might point out that from 1933 to 1941,
the United States and Germany had normal (as possible) diplomatic relations.
Now if you wish to look for real nazi symps, I suggest you and LaRouche check
out certain elements of the America First movement of 1940-41. In whose
national interest did it serve to have such a movement exist to keep the
United States out the war against Germany? It wasn't the British, who
LaRouche includes in his case that a fascist center existed in America.

>
>2. The brothers John Foster and Allen Dulles were a part of this
>American group.

According to LaRouche, not a fact. Here is your guilt by association
fallacies.
I just find this whole alignment, according to LaRouche, to be laughable.
Think about it, the British Empire, American Establishment figures, and the
Zionist movement, all working together with Germany!

>
>3. John Foster Dulles became Secretary of State and Allen Dulles
>became Director of Central Intelligence.

Yep. So? Are you saying Eisenhower was a nazi since he appointed them? Are
saying that the Senate had a majority of nazis because it confirmed them?

>
>4. Prescott Bush carefully guided George's studies and early
>career, to include membership in Skull and Bones, and the core
>"Jupiter Island" group at the nexus of the CIA.

The fact that he guided his son's career is hardly proof of nazi influence.
Neither is the fact that the CIA recruited graduates from elite Ivy League
schools proof of nazi influence..

This is demonstrably
>from the fact that Prescott Bush and the Dulles brothers were
>associates in "The Hitler Project."

So called by La Rouche.

Some punk off the street doesn't
>just wander into such a group without an inside mentor, so what
>better mentor than one's own father, a proven NAZI, to make a
>recommendation to a NAZI employer (who had also recently
>employed a vast array of NAZI war criminals)?

Are you talking about the same Prescott Bush, senator from Connecticut, who
voted to condemn fellow Republican McCarthy? The same McCarthy who defended
Germans accused of executing American troops!

>5. Allen Dulles recruited 2,000 to 5,000 Nazis at the end of World
>War II, directly into the CIA.

How many were scientists? How many were really party members? Dulles was not
the only one who recruited Germans at the end of the War, our military
government in Bavaria had to use many just to keep things in what order there
could be in 1945. Also, you forget, once again, one of the reasons for this
"nazi" recruitment was the growth of Soviet power after the war. I suspect
you are one of those idealist naive radicals who think we could have won the
cold war with the USSR with just our good intentions. BTW do you include Von
Braun on that Nazi list?

George Bush, son of Allen Dulles' old
>banking buddy, later became Director of the CIA.

Oh, yes the banking angle. Amazing how all these theories involving "zionists"
also have the bankers involved.

I point this out to
>remind you that top levels in this institution are very exclusive, and
>one has to have a certain pedigree to advance.

So does the State Department. Big deal. This is elitism, not nazism. Is it
now your contention that all graduates from Ivy League schools from
establishment families are nazis or fascists?

One can even go so
>far as to say a GENETIC pedigree. Arguably, when a Nazi
>sympathiser hires legions of "ex" Nazis at the very foundation of a
>secret intelligence agency, this speaks to the nature of what kind
>of "stuff" a person has to have in order to "make it" in such a
>business. One must be of a certain genetic strain--Ubermenschen.

It speaks of your assumptions and rash speculations. Your first assumption is
that Dulles is a nazi symp and that his intentions to recruit ex nazis is to
establish a fourth reich in the United States. These are two big leaps of
logic based more on ideology than real facts. You and LaRouche ignore the
entire historical context of the times.

>6. CIA, under George Bush's directorship, actively and very
>energetically promoted and upheld third world dictatorships
>of a fascist nature. Somoza in Nicaragua, Marcos in the Phillipines,
>Noriega in Panama, the list goes on and on.

Unfortunately we did support nefarious dictatorships around the world, but you
must remember the Cold War context. You overlook also that our government
help bring most of these guys down as well. Also Bush was only CIA director
for a year in 1976, hardly enough time to set up an empire.

The American public
>was told that these men were "anti-Communists," and so everything
>was okay.

Well they said they were anti-communists at any rate. As far as America
foreign policy was concerned in the era of 1945-1991 the containment or
overthrow of Soviet communism was number one. Everything else, much to our
regret, was subordinated to this effort. This meant that by helping right
wing dictators was neccessary to keep communist bases from being established
in areas we deemed vital to our national security such as Western Europe, the
Carribean, and the Far East. While it looks bad now to a idealist sitting in
an ivory tower with his hindsight machine, these were the cards dealt to
American policy makers in those days.

>7. 100,000 Iraqis are killed. It's alright there, too, because after
>all, Iraqis aren't "real people." (Mud people, right?)

Nope, it was war, a war started by their leader Saddam Hussein. So of our
allies in that same war were also Arab. If our aim was the destruction of
civilians in the Gulf War then why didn't we bomb ALL civilian targets?
What is your thing with Hussein? Why aren't you attacking his fascist
tendencies?

>
>8. The Drug War, instigated primarily by Bush's direction through
>his avatar, Ronald Reagan, has had a devastating toll on minority
>communities here in the U.S., and on Latin America in general.

The Drug War began long before that.

>
>9. While Hitler rose to power in Germany extolling "Liebensraum"
>and the dangers of a large Jewish population, George Bush was
>always wary of the dangers of a large Third World population (with
>"Liebensraum" the inherent result of such a population's dramatic
>reduction).

George Bush was 9 years when Hitler came to power. As for Bush's attitudes
towards the Third World, where did Bush issue decrees to decrease the their
populations for American expansion? According to our current isolationists
(some who are ideological heirs to the America Firsters like Pat Buchanan I
might add) Bush was shipping our jobs overseas to bolster their economies.
This doesn't sound like the actions of an expansionist.

It would seem that extensive support for dictatorial
>regimes who actively promoted "death squads" went a long way
>toward those ends.

We were caught in our own crusade against the Soviet Union. It wasn't
pleasant, but the Soviets were a greater threat than Somoza and his gang. But
the facts remain that Somoza was deposed in 1978, Marcos was deposed in 1986,
Noriega was deposed in 1989. These overthrows would have been impossible
without American approval frankly. In the two of these three countries, the
eventual political system that replaced those right wing dictatorships was a
democratic one.

>
>The above comes, not from Lyndon LaRouche, not from me, not
>from any individual PERSON.

Then where is it coming from?

It comes from history itself:

A history you pervert beyond all recognition.

the
>archives of the Justice Department on the Prescott Bush case;
>the record of Brown Brothers Harriman; the CIA's own logs and
>memorandae; Clinical studies of minority communities; the FBI's
>own records.

As told to us by people like LaRouche and other nutcases. Have you actually
seen these documents?

And personally, I don't care if a person assembling
>these facts is Lyndon LaRouche or Peter Motherfucking Pan. The
>facts stand on their own.

Not really, especially if your thesis is that George Bush was a goose stepping
fascist.

>
>>> ATF is saying there was a meth lab and since they're
>>>not exactly my favorite crowd (though not nearly as bad as FBI), going
>>>by YOUR rules of evidence I can discount what they say entirely. Far
>>>from "innocent," you're a trend-setter, influencial in the ways these
>>>discussions work.
>>
>>Not a trend-setter, My crime is being around you too much. A few of your
>>tactics have rubbed off.
>
>MY tactics?

Yes, your tactics.

YOU are the one saying that if you don't like someone,
>you can brush everything aside that has any remote connection to
>anything that person might have said.

This is EXACTLY what you are doing concerning Bush isn't it? You seem to
accept without question any source that supports your conclusion that Bush is
a fascist.

>

>>> So pull up a chair and help us figure this one out:
>>>remember that if any ATF agents refer to Branch Davidianism, they're
>>>just as guilty of fascism as LaRouche is for saying "Zionism," (and indeed
>>>the Branch Davidians WERE Zionists!!!) and thus disqualify the whole
>>>agency from making any credible statements. You ready to play?
>>
>>Not really. Red Knight needs no help from me on this subject.
>>
>>BTW does it strengthen your argument in this thread to bash me? I don't
>>really care, but if it gives a sense of superiority to get thru the day, go
>>for it.
>
>You're an integral part of the newsgroup. You're a player.

When was the election?

You've
>established what is and what is not EVIDENCE, and if applied to
>the legal system, basically all convicts go free. Woo hoo!!! The
>anarchists will LOVE this!

I have established that your historical analysis is inaccurate and
questiontable. If your version of proper legal system was in effect, people
would be convicted on the basis of ideologically motivated speculation. What
I find disgusting is that your attacks on so far off the mark, that I am
forced to defend people like George Bush!

[ar...@surfari.net]

red.k...@mailexcite.com wrote:
>>>Should I list the evidence presented to JTF-6 once more?
>

> Statements from Koresh to Rodriguez that Mt. Carmel would be an ideal place
> for a meth lab.

Any house with a kitchen "would be an ideal place for a meth lab." That's
hardly evidence.

> FLIR photos showing heat source identified by a National Guard airman
> working for JTF-6 as a possible lab set up.

What kind of heat signatures does a meth lab make that can be distinguished
from food preparation in house where over 100 people live?

> The known existance of a meth lab at Mt. Carmel in the past.

Priceless.

Vernon Howell and followers took possession of Mt Carmel after the previous
occupant, George Roden, departed. Howell found Roden's drug making equipment
and immediately called the Sheriff to get the stuff out of there. Years
later, ATF uses the fact that David Koresh and his people did the right thing
by turning over George Roden's drug lab as an excuse for a military invasion
on Koresh's home. Classic wormy move on the part of our Federal gangsters.

> It is not probable cause. But JTF-6 doesn't require probable cause. Just
> "evidence."

Didn't require evidence or probable cause in this case.

Lynette
--

..

[Kaa Byington]

Guru165871 wrote:
>
> In article <892499704$28...@black-helicopter.psychetect.com>,
> red.k...@mailexcite.com writes:
>
> >> >(off-subject) Do you know the original source of that quote?
> >>
> >> "Kill 'em all, let God sort 'em out" was from forces in Vietnam, and I
> >> think several different units will claim it as their own, but if I remember
> >> correctly it was the Army Special Forces who first coined it. (Though
> >> it was the Air Cav who applied it more extensively...)
> >

> >Roman Catholic Bishop/General during the Albigensian Crusade:
> >
> >Kill them all. God will recognize His own.
>
> And they wonder that some Muslims aren't exactly fans of the Pope...
>

> "It's Constantly Out Of His League Man!" --Crowe T. Robot
> "Easily Bamboozled Man!" --Tom Servo
> "At all times, he has the look of a man who has been hit by a fish" --Mark

Oops again, Guru. The Albigensians were Christians, followers of what
Rome regarded as a heresy, and they lived in the south of France. Not a
Muslim in the bunch. Actually, like the middle eastern Crusades, it had
a lot more to do with power politics and possession of territory and
looting and pillaging than it had to do with religion. Most crusades
weren't started by the Pope--the nobles cooked them up, and he just
tried to stay on the side of the winners. The Crusaders were not above
looting and pillaging the Pope if he didn't go along with them.

[red.k...@mailexcite.com]

In article <892587005$69...@black-helicopter.psychetect.com>,

ar...@surfari.net wrote:
>
>
> red.k...@mailexcite.com wrote:
> >>>Should I list the evidence presented to JTF-6 once more?
> >
> > Statements from Koresh to Rodriguez that Mt. Carmel would be an ideal place
> > for a meth lab.
>
> Any house with a kitchen "would be an ideal place for a meth lab." That's
> hardly evidence.
>

Apparently meth labs are pretty messy affairs. The locations for such things
are usually rural, though certainly not exclusively.

Kitchen gennerally would be a bad place if the descriptions of meth labs I
get here are anything to go by. Too much chance for a spark. Bye bye gas
range.

> > FLIR photos showing heat source identified by a National Guard airman
> > working for JTF-6 as a possible lab set up.
>
> What kind of heat signatures does a meth lab make that can be distinguished
> from food preparation in house where over 100 people live?
>

In this case it was a much jury-rigged space heater.

Did the BDs regularly do food preparation in the gym?

As for distinguishing heat signatures, I guess you'd have to ask JTF-6. It
was their people who made the analysis.

> > The known existance of a meth lab at Mt. Carmel in the past.
>
> Priceless.
>
> Vernon Howell and followers took possession of Mt Carmel after the previous
> occupant, George Roden, departed. Howell found Roden's drug making equipment
> and immediately called the Sheriff to get the stuff out of there. Years
> later, ATF uses the fact that David Koresh and his people did the right thing
> by turning over George Roden's drug lab as an excuse for a military invasion
> on Koresh's home. Classic wormy move on the part of our Federal gangsters.
>

Usually when this comes up, ATF is criticized for NOT knowing that Koresh had
"done the right thing." I can't say one way or the other is correct.

> > It is not probable cause. But JTF-6 doesn't require probable cause. Just
> > "evidence."
>
> Didn't require evidence or probable cause in this case.
>

Grail IC

[Guru165871]

In article <892572605$64...@black-helicopter.psychetect.com>, HCCRR
<HC...@aol.com> writes:

>>1. Prescott Bush was a Nazi sympathiser who promoted Third Reich
>>causes from 1933 through 1942.
>
>Not a documented fact, just a string of speculative assertions. Was he a
>member of the Nazi Party? Was he a member of the German-American Bund? No
>in
>both cases. The fact that Prescott Bush had wide financial interests,
>including some that might deal with Germany in the 1930s, doesn't
>automatically make him a symp. Also I might point out that from 1933 to 1941,
>the United States and Germany had normal (as possible) diplomatic relations.
>Now if you wish to look for real nazi symps, I suggest you and LaRouche check
>out certain elements of the America First movement of 1940-41. In whose
>national interest did it serve to have such a movement exist to keep the
>United States out the war against Germany? It wasn't the British, who
>LaRouche includes in his case that a fascist center existed in America.

That's right, that's the spirit, SHILL for me, baby... WORK it!!!

[Guru165871]

In article <892591502$71...@black-helicopter.psychetect.com>, Kaa Byington
<kbyi...@earthlink.net> writes:

>Oops again, Guru. The Albigensians were Christians, followers of what
>Rome regarded as a heresy, and they lived in the south of France. Not a
>Muslim in the bunch. Actually, like the middle eastern Crusades, it had
>a lot more to do with power politics and possession of territory and
>looting and pillaging than it had to do with religion. Most crusades
>weren't started by the Pope--the nobles cooked them up, and he just
>tried to stay on the side of the winners. The Crusaders were not above
>looting and pillaging the Pope if he didn't go along with them.

I stand corrected; and of the two of us, I'm the only one with the
intestinal fortitude to do this.

[HCCRR]

In article <892650309$99...@black-helicopter.psychetect.com>, guru1...@aol.com
(Guru165871) writes:

>Subject: Re: Waco, Rules of Engagement; some observations
>From: guru1...@aol.com (Guru165871)

>Date: Wed, 15 Apr 98 14:25:09 GMT

>
>
>In article <892572605$64...@black-helicopter.psychetect.com>, HCCRR
><HC...@aol.com> writes:
>
>>>1. Prescott Bush was a Nazi sympathiser who promoted Third Reich
>>>causes from 1933 through 1942.
>>
>>Not a documented fact, just a string of speculative assertions. Was he a
>>member of the Nazi Party? Was he a member of the German-American Bund? No
>>in
>>both cases. The fact that Prescott Bush had wide financial interests,
>>including some that might deal with Germany in the 1930s, doesn't
>>automatically make him a symp. Also I might point out that from 1933 to
>1941,
>>the United States and Germany had normal (as possible) diplomatic relations.
>>Now if you wish to look for real nazi symps, I suggest you and LaRouche
>check
>>out certain elements of the America First movement of 1940-41. In whose
>>national interest did it serve to have such a movement exist to keep the
>>United States out the war against Germany? It wasn't the British, who
>>LaRouche includes in his case that a fascist center existed in America.
>
>That's right, that's the spirit, SHILL for me, baby... WORK it!!!

Is this your only answer? Gee, I guess you don't quite have the information
you claim.

[Guru165871]

In article <892668001$10...@black-helicopter.psychetect.com>, hc...@aol.com
(HCCRR) writes:

>>That's right, that's the spirit, SHILL for me, baby... WORK it!!!
>
>Is this your only answer? Gee, I guess you don't quite have the information
>you claim.

Well, I COULD have told you all about General Gehlen's group, the
deal he made with OSS, some of the Cold War planning details,
etc., but since I've switched loyalties it's no longer in my interest.
You are now my psyops minion, doing MY dirty work. You will
recieve further instructions later. That'll be all for now.

"A King may choose his garment as he will: there is no certain test;
But a beggar cannot hide his poverty... If he be a King, thou canst
not hurt him. Therefore, strike hard & low, and to hell with them,
master!" --Hadit

[HCCRR]

In article <892728300$15...@black-helicopter.psychetect.com>, guru1...@aol.com
(Guru165871) writes:

>In article <892668001$10...@black-helicopter.psychetect.com>, hc...@aol.com
>(HCCRR) writes:
>
>>>That's right, that's the spirit, SHILL for me, baby... WORK it!!!
>>
>>Is this your only answer? Gee, I guess you don't quite have the information
>>you claim.
>
>Well, I COULD have told you all about General Gehlen's group, the
>deal he made with OSS, some of the Cold War planning details,
>etc., but since I've switched loyalties it's no longer in my interest.

You haven't established proof that the Bushes are fascists however. You take
facts out of context and then place them into a preconceived pattern.

>You are now my psyops minion, doing MY dirty work. You will
>recieve further instructions later. That'll be all for now.

Who are you doing your dirty work for? The real fascists out there who escape
your attention while focusing on stupid crap pushed by the LaRouchites?
>
>

[Guru165871]

In article <892754408$31...@black-helicopter.psychetect.com>, hc...@aol.com
(HCCRR) writes:

>>Well, I COULD have told you all about General Gehlen's group, the
>>deal he made with OSS, some of the Cold War planning details,
>>etc., but since I've switched loyalties it's no longer in my interest.
>
>You haven't established proof that the Bushes are fascists however.

Bush is my new best friend, and your orders, as my minion, are to
extoll his glory. Never mind what he was: don't look into his past,
and you must forbid others to do so.

>>You are now my psyops minion, doing MY dirty work. You will
>>recieve further instructions later. That'll be all for now.
>
>Who are you doing your dirty work for?

I do clean work, and for ever-increasing sums of cash. That's all
you need to know.

[HCCRR]

In article <892821040$61...@black-helicopter.psychetect.com>, guru1...@aol.com
(Guru165871) writes:

>
>In article <892754408$31...@black-helicopter.psychetect.com>, hc...@aol.com
>(HCCRR) writes:
>
>>>Well, I COULD have told you all about General Gehlen's group, the
>>>deal he made with OSS, some of the Cold War planning details,
>>>etc., but since I've switched loyalties it's no longer in my interest.
>>
>>You haven't established proof that the Bushes are fascists however.
>
>Bush is my new best friend, and your orders, as my minion, are to
>extoll his glory. Never mind what he was: don't look into his past,
>and you must forbid others to do so.

You still haven't established proof. All you do is come up with stupid
comments like that above.

>
>>>You are now my psyops minion, doing MY dirty work. You will
>>>recieve further instructions later. That'll be all for now.
>>
>>Who are you doing your dirty work for?
>
>I do clean work, and for ever-increasing sums of cash. That's all
>you need to know.

Yeah, right.

BTW the last thing I want to do is extoll the glories of George Bush. In fact
I think he was not a very good president. My defense of him from the
ridiculous charges hurled at him by you and the LaRouchites is because I hate
it when people stretch terms like fascist out of proportion to the point it is
meaningless. I still find it interesting you have to use the work of a
convicted con man to prove your silly assertions.

[Guru165871]

In article <892945207$10...@black-helicopter.psychetect.com>, hc...@aol.com
(HCCRR) writes:

>BTW the last thing I want to do is extoll the glories of George Bush.

You don't have a choice in the matter: your orders are to defend against
any accusations about his past and ridicule anyone who might question
his integrity. Do this, and you might get larger projects to work on.

>In fact I think he was not a very good president. My defense of him from the
>ridiculous charges hurled at him by you and the LaRouchites is because I hate
>it when people stretch terms like fascist out of proportion to the point it
>is meaningless. I still find it interesting you have to use the work of a
>convicted con man to prove your silly assertions.

La Rouche is my new sworn enemy: We are at war with Eurasia, dontcha
know, ROFLMAO...

[HCCRR]

In article <893081119$17...@black-helicopter.psychetect.com>, guru1...@aol.com
(Guru165871) writes:

>In article <892945207$10...@black-helicopter.psychetect.com>, hc...@aol.com
>(HCCRR) writes:
>
>>BTW the last thing I want to do is extoll the glories of George Bush.
>
>You don't have a choice in the matter: your orders are to defend against
>any accusations about his past and ridicule anyone who might question
>his integrity. Do this, and you might get larger projects to work on.

Does this mean you get orders from somebody?

>
>>In fact I think he was not a very good president. My defense of him from
>the
>>ridiculous charges hurled at him by you and the LaRouchites is because I
>hate
>>it when people stretch terms like fascist out of proportion to the point it
>>is meaningless. I still find it interesting you have to use the work of a
>>convicted con man to prove your silly assertions.
>
>La Rouche is my new sworn enemy: We are at war with Eurasia, dontcha
>know, ROFLMAO...

I guess your recent group of posts are proof you live in a dream world.

[Guru165871]

In article <893091001$22...@black-helicopter.psychetect.com>, hc...@aol.com
(HCCRR) writes:

>>>BTW the last thing I want to do is extoll the glories of George Bush.
>>
>>You don't have a choice in the matter: your orders are to defend against
>>any accusations about his past and ridicule anyone who might question
>>his integrity. Do this, and you might get larger projects to work on.
>
>Does this mean you get orders from somebody?

It isn't your concern.

>>La Rouche is my new sworn enemy: We are at war with Eurasia, dontcha
>>know, ROFLMAO...
>
>I guess your recent group of posts are proof you live in a dream world.

Far better: I help create the dream world in which most Americans live.

"The great bond of all bonds is ignorance. How shall a
man be free to act if he know not his own purpose?"
--Liber CL, _De Lege Libellum_